Relevance Management System

ABSTRACT

A relevance management system for managing relevance of a plurality of request for proposal (RFP) documents with respect to a plurality of project description (PD) documents; receiving a PD document; creating a PD-document decomposition by decomposing the PD document into PD segments; determining an RFP-document-to-PD-segment relevance for an RFP document from the plurality of RFP documents and the PD segments using document similarity processing and a metric; aggregating the RFP-document-to-PD-segment relevance by the PD-document decomposition to produce an RFP-to-PD relevance; and transmitting the RFP-to-PD relevance to an originator of the PD document.

CROSS REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS

This application discloses and claims only subject matter disclosed inprior application Ser. No. 15/203,841, filed Jul. 7, 2016, and names theinventor in the prior application. Accordingly, this application mayconstitute a continuation or divisional.

STATEMENT REGARDING FEDERALLY SPONSORED RESEARCH OR DEVELOPMENT (IFAPPLICABLE)

Not Applicable

REFERENCE TO SEQUENCE LISTING, A TABLE, OR A COMPUTER PROGRAM LISTINGCOMPACT DISC APPENDIX (IF APPLICABLE)

Not Applicable

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

The present invention relates to the field of document analysis, andmore particularly to methods and systems for rapidly determiningrelevancy of documents to one another. More particularly, the presentinvention relates to methods and systems to determine relevancy ofexperience and work requirements, including such as may be representedin documents. More particularly, the present invention relates tomethods and systems to identify, aggregate, navigate, validate,recommend, and broker relevant experience and team member capabilities,which more particularly may be used to facilitate a proposal response toa Request for Proposals (RFP).

BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

We disclose a method for determining the relevance of a plurality ofproject description (PD) documents or other documents with respect to aplurality of request for proposal (RFP) documents or other documents,establishing hierarchical relationships between PD documents and atleast one hierarchical level, and aggregating the relevance of PDdocuments using these hierarchical relationships. We disclose arelevance management system that performs RFP-to-PD relevancedetermination to assist a contractor in identifying PDs that representrelevant experience with respect to an RFP, or in identifying relevantRFPs that represents work opportunities with respect to work experience,such as represented in a PD. The relevance management system may usedocument similarity matching techniques to identify elements of a PDthat represent relevant experience with respect to elements of an RFP,and techniques such as hierarchical aggregation, filtering, and rankingto determine RFP-to-PD relevance, PD-owner (company) capabilities, andoverall team capabilities. The relevance management system may providefunctionality to validate, recommend, and broker relevant experience andteam member capabilities. Through such functionality, significantelements of a business development process, such as identifyingsubcontractors with complementary or overlapping capabilities oridentifying relevant work opportunities, and the costs associated withsuch activities, may be eliminated or greatly streamlined, therebyreducing business development costs. The relevance management system mayhelp a prime contractor identify, understand, and manage experience andcapabilities it may draw upon, both from within its organization, aswell as from external subcontractors, which may be helpful in respondingto an RFP with a proposal.

BRIEF SUMMARY OF SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWINGS

FIG. 1 is a contracting process overview, in accordance with anexemplary embodiment of the invention.

FIG. 2 is a relevance management system, in accordance with an exemplaryembodiment of the invention.

FIG. 3 is a relevance management system supporting a distributed enduser base, in accordance with an exemplary embodiment of the invention.

FIG. 4 is a relevance management system, in accordance with an exemplaryembodiment of the invention.

FIG. 5 is a Project Description (PD) structure, in accordance with anexemplary embodiment of the invention.

FIG. 6 is a Request for Proposal (RFP) structure, in accordance with anexemplary embodiment of the invention.

FIG. 7 is a mock-up of a single-row relevance comparison chart that maybe used to represent the relevance of an RFP to a PD, in accordance withan exemplary embodiment of the invention.

FIG. 8 is a mock-up of a relevance chart that may be used to representthe relevance of an RFP to multiple PDs, in accordance with an exemplaryembodiment of the invention.

FIG. 9 is a mock-up of a relevance chart that may be used to determine acapability gap, in accordance with an exemplary embodiment of theinvention.

FIG. 10 is a mock-up of a relevance chart that may be used to representPD owner capabilities, in accordance with an exemplary embodiment of theinvention.

FIG. 11 is a relevance management system overview disclosing modularcomponents, in accordance with an exemplary embodiment of the invention.

FIG. 12 is a controller module, in accordance with an exemplaryembodiment of the invention.

FIG. 13 is an interface module overview, in accordance with an exemplaryembodiment of the invention.

FIG. 14 is an interface module for data entry, in accordance with anexemplary embodiment of the invention.

FIG. 15 is an interface module for match processing, in accordance withan exemplary embodiment of the invention.

FIG. 16 is an interface module for relevance results, in accordance withan exemplary embodiment of the invention.

FIG. 17 is an interface module for teaming facilitation, in accordancewith an exemplary embodiment of the invention.

FIG. 18 is a mock-up of a brokered relevance notification interface asmay be used by a communication module, in accordance with an exemplaryembodiment of the invention.

FIG. 19 is a mock-up of a brokered request interface as may be used by acommunication module, in accordance with an exemplary embodiment of theinvention.

FIG. 20 is a processing module, in accordance with an exemplaryembodiment of the invention.

FIG. 21 is a Project Descriptor data organization, in accordance with anexemplary embodiment of the invention.

FIG. 22 depicts relationship between hierarchical aggregation,filtering, and ranking, in accordance with an exemplary embodiment ofthe invention.

FIG. 23 is an ST exemplar based on a Project Descriptor, in accordancewith an exemplary embodiment of the invention.

FIG. 24 is a mock-up of an ST data entry interface, in accordance withan exemplary embodiment of the invention.

FIG. 25 is a PD exemplar based on a Project Descriptor, in accordancewith an exemplary embodiment of the invention.

FIG. 26 is a mock-up of a PD data entry interface, in accordance with anexemplary embodiment of the invention.

FIG. 27 is a mock-up of a PD data entry selection exemplar, inaccordance with an exemplary embodiment of the invention.

FIG. 28 is a mock-up of a PD data entry additional contract detailinterface, in accordance with an exemplary embodiment of the invention.

FIG. 29 is a mock-up of a PD data entry relevant achievement interface,in accordance with an exemplary embodiment of the invention.

FIG. 30 is an RFP exemplar based on a Project Descriptor structure, inaccordance with an exemplary embodiment of the invention.

FIG. 31 is an RFP data entry interface, in accordance with an exemplaryembodiment of the invention.

FIG. 32 is an exemplar of a PD Project Descriptor in array format, inaccordance with an exemplary embodiment of the invention.

FIG. 33 is an exemplar of an RFP Project Descriptor in array format, inaccordance with an exemplary embodiment of the invention.

FIG. 34 is an exemplar for match processing using a PD ProjectDescriptor and an RFP Project Descriptor, in accordance with anexemplary embodiment of the invention.

FIG. 35 is procedure Determine_Relevance_Matrix( ), in accordance withan exemplary embodiment of the invention.

FIG. 36 is function Content_Comparator( ) in accordance with anexemplary embodiment of the invention.

FIG. 37 depicts an exemplar execution of procedureDetermine_Relevance_Matrix( ) in accordance with an exemplary embodimentof the invention.

FIG. 38 is procedure Build_Relevance_Table( ), in accordance with anexemplary embodiment of the invention.

FIG. 39 depicts an exemplar execution of procedureBuild_Relevance_Table( ), in accordance with an exemplary embodiment ofthe invention.

FIG. 40 is procedure Roll_Up_By_PD( ), in accordance with an exemplaryembodiment of the invention.

FIG. 41 depicts exemplar execution of procedure Roll_Up_By_PD( ), inaccordance with an exemplary embodiment of the invention.

FIG. 42 is procedure Update_Relevance_Chart( ), in accordance with anexemplary embodiment of the invention.

FIG. 43A is a mock-up of a single-row relevance chart that depictsexemplar execution of procedure Update_Relevance_Chart( ) using singlePD Project Descriptor input, in accordance with an exemplary embodimentof the invention.

FIG. 43B is a mock-up of a single-row relevance chart that illustratesthe use of alternative exemplar symbols to indicate relevance, inaccordance with an exemplary embodiment of the invention.

FIG. 44 depicts an exemplar execution of procedureBuild_Relevance_Table( ) using multiple PD Project Descriptors inputs,in accordance with an exemplary embodiment of the invention.

FIG. 45 depicts exemplar execution of procedure Roll_Up_By_PD( ) usingmultiple PD Project Descriptors inputs, in accordance with an exemplaryembodiment of the invention.

FIG. 46 is procedure Roll_Up_By_RFP( ), in accordance with an exemplaryembodiment of the invention.

FIG. 47 is an exemplar weights matrix, such as may be used by procedureRoll_Up_By_RFP( ), in accordance with an exemplary embodiment of theinvention.

FIG. 48 depicts exemplar execution of procedure Roll_Up_By_RFP( ) usingmultiple PD Project Descriptors inputs, in accordance with an exemplaryembodiment of the invention.

FIG. 49 is a mock-up of a project relevance summary interface, inaccordance with an exemplary embodiment of the invention.

FIG. 50 is a mock-up of an RFP SOW element detail interface, inaccordance with an exemplary embodiment of the invention.

FIG. 51 is a mock-up of a project relevance summary section, showing PDowner, in accordance with an exemplary embodiment of the invention.

FIG. 52 is a mock-up of an RFP-to-PD element-to-element (E2E) relevanceinterface, in accordance with an exemplary embodiment of the invention.

FIG. 53 depicts a structure for processing PDs and RFPs in multipledimensions, in accordance with an exemplary embodiment of the invention.

FIG. 54 is a star schema supporting hierarchical aggregation, inaccordance with an exemplary embodiment of the invention.

FIG. 55 is an aggregation processing flow for a capability-seeking enduser, in accordance with an exemplary embodiment of the invention.

FIG. 56 depicts an exemplar execution of Roll-Up-By-PD-Owner processing,in accordance with an exemplary embodiment of the invention.

FIG. 57 is a mock-up of a single-row relevance chart that depictsexemplar execution of procedure Update_Relevance_Chart( ) usingRoll-Up-By-PD-Owner input, in accordance with an exemplary embodiment ofthe invention.

FIG. 58 is a mock-up of a capabilities summary interface with projectrelevance drill-down, in accordance with an exemplary embodiment of theinvention.

FIG. 59 is an aggregation processing flow for a capability-providing enduser, in accordance with an exemplary embodiment of the invention.

FIG. 60 is a mock-up of an RFP relevance summary interface with projectrelevance drill-down, in accordance with an exemplary embodiment of theinvention.

FIG. 61 is a mock-up of an RFP relevance summary section in expandedformat, in accordance with an exemplary embodiment of the invention.

FIG. 62A depicts PD customer example 1 (PCE1), in accordance with anexemplary embodiment of the invention.

FIG. 62B depicts RFP customer example 1 (RCE1), in accordance with anexemplary embodiment of the invention.

FIG. 62C depicts PCE1 intersection with RCE1 (INT1), in accordance withan exemplary embodiment of the invention.

FIG. 63A depicts PD customer example 2 (PCE2), in accordance with anexemplary embodiment of the invention.

FIG. 63B depicts PD customer example 3 (PCE3), in accordance with anexemplary embodiment of the invention.

FIG. 63C depicts PCE2 intersection with RCE1 (INT2), in accordance withan exemplary embodiment of the invention.

FIG. 63D depicts PCE3 intersection with RCE1 (INT3), in accordance withan exemplary embodiment of the invention.

FIG. 64A depicts RFP customer filter 1 (RCF1), in accordance with anexemplary embodiment of the invention.

FIG. 64B depicts PCE1 intersection with RCF1 (INT4), in accordance withan exemplary embodiment of the invention.

FIG. 64C depicts PCE2 intersection with RCF1 (INT5), in accordance withan exemplary embodiment of the invention.

FIG. 65 is a summary of the effect of RFP criteria hierarchy onfiltering and ranking processes, in accordance with an exemplaryembodiment of the invention.

FIG. 66 is a structure for filtering and ranking processes and criteria,in accordance with an exemplary embodiment of the invention.

FIG. 67 is procedure Create_Descriptor_Map( ), in accordance with anexemplary embodiment of the invention.

FIG. 68 depicts an exemplar generalized descriptor, in accordance withan exemplary embodiment of the invention.

FIG. 69A depicts descriptor example PD1, in accordance with an exemplaryembodiment of the invention.

FIG. 69B depicts Descriptor example PD2, in accordance with an exemplaryembodiment of the invention.

FIG. 70A depicts Descriptor example RFP1, in accordance with anexemplary embodiment of the invention.

FIG. 70B depicts Descriptor example RFP2, in accordance with anexemplary embodiment of the invention.

FIG. 70C depicts Descriptor example RFP3, in accordance with anexemplary embodiment of the invention.

FIG. 71 is procedure Overlay_Descriptors( ), in accordance with anexemplary embodiment of the invention.

FIG. 72A depicts an exemplar execution of procedure Overlay_Descriptors() using PD1, PD2, and “AND” inputs, in accordance with an exemplaryembodiment of the invention.

FIG. 72B depicts an exemplar execution of procedure Overlay_Descriptors() using PD1, PD2, and “OR” inputs, in accordance with an exemplaryembodiment of the invention.

FIG. 73A depicts an exemplar execution of procedure Overlay_Descriptors() using RFP1, RFP2, RFP3, and “AND” inputs, in accordance with anexemplary embodiment of the invention.

FIG. 73B depicts an exemplar execution of procedure Overlay_Descriptors() using RFP1, RFP2, RFP3, and “OR” inputs, in accordance with anexemplary embodiment of the invention.

FIG. 74 is procedure Determine_Descriptor_Intersection( ), in accordancewith an exemplary embodiment of the invention.

FIG. 75 depicts an exemplar execution of procedureDetermine_Descriptor_Intersection( ) using PD3 and RFP4 inputs, inaccordance with an exemplary embodiment of the invention.

FIG. 76 is procedure Compute_Weighted_Relevance( ), in accordance withan exemplary embodiment of the invention.

FIG. 77 is an exemplar weighting map, as may be used as input toprocedure Compute_Weighted_Relevance( ), in accordance with an exemplaryembodiment of the invention.

FIG. 78 is procedure Create_Filter_Table_From_Map( ), in accordance withan exemplary embodiment of the invention.

FIG. 79 depicts an exemplar execution of procedureCreate_Filter_Table_From_Map( ) using INT6 input, in accordance with anexemplary embodiment of the invention.

FIG. 80 is a mock-up of a multiple-entry interface for entering multipleoverlapping descriptors, in accordance with an exemplary embodiment ofthe invention.

FIG. 81 depicts an exemplary execution of a multiple-entry interface, inaccordance with an exemplary embodiment of the invention.

FIG. 82A depicts descriptor customer example 1 (EX1), in accordance withan exemplary embodiment of the invention.

FIG. 82B depicts descriptor customer example 2 (EX2), in accordance withan exemplary embodiment of the invention.

FIG. 82C depicts an exemplar execution of procedure Overlay_Descriptors() using EX1, EX2, and “AND” inputs, in accordance with an exemplaryembodiment of the invention.

FIG. 83A depicts a PD customer example 1 (PCE1) map representation, inaccordance with an exemplary embodiment of the invention.

FIG. 83B depicts an RFP customer example 1 (RCE1) map representation, inaccordance with an exemplary embodiment of the invention.

FIG. 83C depicts an exemplar execution of procedureDetermine_Descriptor_Intersection( ) using PCE1 and RCE1 inputs as maprepresentations to create INT7, in accordance with an exemplaryembodiment of the invention.

FIG. 84 depicts an exemplar execution of procedureCreate_Filter_Table_From_Map( ) using INT7 input, in accordance with anexemplary embodiment of the invention.

FIG. 85 depicts exemplar customer descriptor information for RFP andPDs, in accordance with an exemplary embodiment of the invention.

FIG. 86 depicts an exemplar execution of procedureCreate_Filter_Table_From_Map( ) using multiple customer descriptorinputs, in accordance with an exemplary embodiment of the invention.

FIG. 87 depicts an exemplar updating of a relevance cube table forcustomer filters and customer relevance, in accordance with an exemplaryembodiment of the invention.

FIG. 88 depicts an exemplar construction process for PoP date filters,in accordance with an exemplary embodiment of the invention.

FIG. 89 depicts an exemplar updating of relevance cube table for PoPdate filters, in accordance with an exemplary embodiment of theinvention.

FIG. 90 depicts an exemplar construction process for overall relevance,in accordance with an exemplary embodiment of the invention.

FIG. 91 is a mock-up of a contract criteria interface 1 for filteringand ranking, in accordance with an exemplary embodiment of theinvention.

FIG. 92 is a mock-up of a contract criteria interface 2 for filteringand ranking, in accordance with an exemplary embodiment of theinvention.

FIG. 93 is a mock-up of a contract criteria interface 3 for filteringand ranking, in accordance with an exemplary embodiment of theinvention.

FIG. 94 depicts exemplar execution 1 of a contract criteria interface,entering filters for PoP dates and customer, in accordance with anexemplary embodiment of the invention.

FIG. 95 depicts exemplar execution 2 of a contract criteria interface,performing customer selection, in accordance with an exemplaryembodiment of the invention.

FIG. 96 is a mock-up of an exemplar project relevance summary section,presenting updated results based on contract criteria interfaceexecution, in accordance with an exemplary embodiment of the invention.

FIG. 97 is a mock-up of a team construction interface, in accordancewith an exemplary embodiment of the invention.

FIG. 98 depicts exemplar execution 1 of a team construction interface,in accordance with an exemplary embodiment of the invention.

FIG. 99 depicts exemplar execution of a contract criteria interface forrecommendation processing, in accordance with an exemplary embodiment ofthe invention.

FIG. 100 depicts exemplar execution 2 of a team construction interface,in accordance with an exemplary embodiment of the invention.

FIG. 101 depicts exemplar execution 3 of a team construction interface,in accordance with an exemplary embodiment of the invention.

FIG. 102 depicts exemplar execution of a contract criteria interface forfiltering using criteria from an end user, in accordance with anexemplary embodiment of the invention.

FIG. 103 depicts exemplar execution 4 of a team construction interface,in accordance with an exemplary embodiment of the invention.

FIG. 104 depicts exemplar execution 5 of a team construction interface,in accordance with an exemplary embodiment of the invention.

FIG. 105 is a mock-up of a proposal outline-to-RFP mapping interface, inaccordance with an exemplary embodiment of the invention.

FIG. 106 depicts a mock-up of an exemplar proposal writing plan artifactgenerated by a relevance management system, in accordance with anexemplary embodiment of the invention.

FIG. 107 depicts a mock-up of an exemplar rationale for team compositionartifact generated by a relevance management system, in accordance withan exemplary embodiment of the invention.

FIG. 108 depicts a mock-up of an exemplar rationale for past performanceselection artifact generated by a relevance management system, inaccordance with an exemplary embodiment of the invention.

FIG. 109 depicts a mock-up of an exemplar past performance write-upartifact generated by a relevance management system, in accordance withan exemplary embodiment of the invention.

FIG. 110 depicts template processing, in accordance with an exemplaryembodiment of the invention.

FIG. 111 depicts an ST Project Descriptor for template processing, inaccordance with an exemplary embodiment of the invention.

FIG. 112 is a mock-up of an ST data entry interface for templateprocessing, in accordance with an exemplary embodiment of the invention.

FIG. 113 is a mock-up of an element-to-element (E2E) relevanceinterface, in accordance with an exemplary embodiment of the invention.

FIG. 114 depicts relevance relationships for template processing, inaccordance with an exemplary embodiment of the invention.

FIG. 115 is procedure Template_Based_Match( ) in accordance with anexemplary embodiment of the invention.

FIG. 116A is function Intersection( ), in accordance with an exemplaryembodiment of the invention.

FIG. 116B is function High_Pass_Filtered_Average( ), in accordance withan exemplary embodiment of the invention.

FIG. 116C is function Product( ), in accordance with an exemplaryembodiment of the invention.

FIG. 117A depicts exemplar execution 1 of procedureTemplate_Based_Match( ) using Set 1 and Set 2 as inputs, in accordancewith an exemplary embodiment of the invention.

FIG. 117B depicts exemplar execution 2 of procedureTemplate_Based_Match( ) using Set 3 and Set 2 as inputs, in accordancewith an exemplary embodiment of the invention.

FIG. 117C depicts exemplar execution 3 of procedureTemplate_Based_Match( ) transpose operation, in accordance with anexemplary embodiment of the invention.

FIG. 117D depicts exemplar execution 4 of procedureTemplate_Based_Match( ) result for Sets 1 and 3, in accordance with anexemplary embodiment of the invention.

FIG. 118A depicts exemplar execution 1 of procedureTemplate_Based_Match( ) using PD and ST inputs, in accordance with anexemplary embodiment of the invention.

FIG. 118B depicts exemplar execution 2 of procedureTemplate_Based_Match( ) using RFP and ST inputs, in accordance with anexemplary embodiment of the invention.

FIG. 118C depicts exemplar execution 3 of procedureTemplate_Based_Match( ) transpose operation, in accordance with anexemplary embodiment of the invention.

FIG. 118D depicts exemplar execution 4 of procedureTemplate_Based_Match( ) result for PD and RFP, in accordance with anexemplary embodiment of the invention.

FIG. 119 depicts exemplar execution values for procedureTemplate_Based_Match( ) using ST, PD, and RFP inputs, in accordance withan exemplary embodiment of the invention.

FIG. 120 depicts a computer-based device with a computer-based productimplementation, in accordance with an exemplary embodiment of theinvention.

FIG. 121A depicts a tag-based Project Descriptor sub-descriptor for anexemplar ST, in accordance with an exemplary embodiment of theinvention.

FIG. 121B depicts a tag-based Project Descriptor sub-descriptor for anexemplar PD, in accordance with an exemplary embodiment of theinvention.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION

Reference will now be made in detail to the present exemplaryembodiments of the invention, examples of which are illustrated in theaccompanying drawings.

An exemplary embodiment of the present invention may relate to thebusiness of contracting. Referring to FIG. 1 we describe an overallcontracting process. A customer, which may be a U.S. Government agencyor other entity, may prepare 110 a Request for Proposal (RFP) document120, which may also be referred to as a “Request for Quote (RFQ)”, “TaskOrder Request (TOR)”, “Delivery Order (DO)”, or other similar name. AnRFP may be comprised of multiple sections, such as (1) a Statement ofWork (SOW) or Performance Work Statement (PWS) that describesrequirements of work to be performed (i.e., goods and/or servicessought); (2) Proposal Preparation Instructions (PPI) that describedocuments or other artifacts a contractor must prepare and submit as aproposal to bid upon the work; and (3) Evaluation Criteria (EC), whichdescribe how an evaluator in a customer organization shall evaluate andrank submitted proposals, and possibly select one for award as acontract. A customer distributes an RFP 130 to a contracting community140, requesting that interested and qualified contractors prepare andsubmit proposals that achieve the RFP requirements.

Upon receiving an RFP, a contractor within a contracting community 140may begin making determinations of its individual (and potentiallycollective) capabilities to respond competitively to the RFPrequirements. At the most basic level, does said contractor have thetechnical and management capabilities to provide the requested servicesas described in a SOW, at a competitive price? Based upon determinationsof in-house capabilities, and external communications with othercontractors that have complementary and/or overlapping capabilities, asmall number of prime contractors may emerge, who are those contractorsthat may prepare proposals. Often, in order to effectively respond toRFP 120 requirements, a prime contractor may build and lead a team ofsubcontractors who may bid collectively on an RFP “under” said primecontractor. Note that a prime contractor may be responsible forpreparing 141 a proposal 142 and submitting it to a customer 143, and acontract 160 awarded as a result of proposal evaluation 150 will beawarded to said prime contractor.

A prime contractor may prepare 141, in accordance with a PPI, a proposal142 that meets the RFP requirements, and submit said proposal 143 to anevaluator, typically a group within a customer organization, forevaluation according to an EC. An evaluator may examine, evaluate, andrank proposals received from prime contractors 150, and may award acontract to a (prime) contractor whose proposal was evaluated mostfavorably, generally indicated by highest evaluation score. A resultingcontract 160 may represent a legally binding agreement between acustomer and a prime contractor, for work to be performed.

In order to provide the required goods or services, a prime contractorperforms the contractual work 170, typically as a project under theguidance and responsibility of a Program Manager from said primecontractor organization. As a project implementation for a contract isunderway, or at the conclusion of said project, a contractororganization will often document 180, such as for internal use, workperformed under said contract, typically in a short (often 1-5 pages)project description (PD) 190 that may serve as a description of currentor past performance. A contractor may be well motivated to prepare andmaintain such PDs, as said PDs may serve as documentation a contractormay use in preparing future proposals, as evidence of said contractor'sability to perform such work.

Before the present invention is described in further detail, it is to beunderstood that the invention is not limited to the particularembodiments described, as such may, of course, vary. It is also to beunderstood that the terminology used herein is for the purpose ofdescribing particular embodiments only, and is not intended to belimiting, since the scope of the present invention will be limited onlyby the appended claims.

Where a range of values is provided, it is understood that eachintervening value, to the tenth of the unit of the lower limit unlessthe context clearly dictates otherwise, between the upper and lowerlimit of that range and any other stated or intervening value in thatstated range is encompassed within the invention. The upper and lowerlimits of these smaller ranges may independently be included in thesmaller ranges is also encompassed within the invention, subject to anyspecifically excluded limit in the stated range. Where the stated rangeincludes one or both of the limits, ranges excluding either or both ofthose included limits are also included in the invention.

Unless defined otherwise, all technical and scientific terms used hereinhave the same meaning as commonly understood by one of ordinary skill inthe art to which this invention belongs. Although any methods andmaterials similar or equivalent to those described herein can also beused in the practice or testing of the present invention, a limitednumber of the exemplary methods and materials are described herein.

It must be noted that as used herein and in the appended claims, thesingular forms “a”, “an”, and “the” include plural referents unless thecontext clearly dictates otherwise.

All publications mentioned herein are incorporated herein by referenceto disclose and describe the methods or materials in connection withwhich the publications are cited. The publications discussed herein areprovided solely for their disclosure prior to the filing date of thepresent application. Nothing herein is to be construed as an admissionthat the present invention is not entitled to antedate such publicationby virtue of prior invention. Further, the dates of publication providedmay be different from the actual publication dates, which may need to beindependently confirmed.

Relevance Management System Overview

FIG. 2 generally depicts an overview of a relevance management system230, in accordance with an exemplary embodiment of the invention,showing end users (Ref. 210 and 211), inputs (Ref 220 and 221), keycomponents of system processing (Ref. 231, 232, 233, and 234), and keybenefits 240 to an end user. End users are generally contractors, whomay generally fall into two categories, a first being a contractor 211who has received an RFP 221 and is considering being a prime contractor,which will entail preparing and submitting a proposal; and a secondbeing a contractor 210 who brings capabilities and experience, such asrepresented by PDs 220, which may be useful to a prime contractor inpreparing a proposal. The second category of contractors, those havingPDs 210, will generally overlap with (i.e., include members from) thefirst category of contractors, who have received an RFP 211, in additionto including a broad base of subcontractors who may generally seek tojoin a prime contractor's team. For example, a prime contractor maytypically belong to both categories (Ref. 210, 211), whereas asubcontractor may typically use the system as a PD provider 210.

To prepare a proposal 234 that will be evaluated favorably, a potentialprime contractor 211 must generally understand how well said primecontractor's experience and capabilities match the requirements of anRFP 221. The RFP requirements are generally well documented and readilyaccessible, captured in the SOW, PPI, and EC of an RFP 221. In contrast,in the current state of the art, a contractor's “experience” and“capabilities”, evidence of which may need to be submitted as part of aproposal, are often less well documented, less readily accessible, ormay in some cases be based on contractor organization assertions thatare exaggerated or cannot readily be substantiated—for example, maycontain significant marketing hyperbole. Because a proposal will likelybe evaluated using specific criteria from an EC, which typically requiredescribing and documenting where a contractor (and its subcontractors)has performed work that is of similar “size, scope, and complexity” tothe RFP requirements, it is beneficial for a contractor to baseassertions of “experience” and “capabilities” in a proposal upon actualexperience, such as may be represented by PDs. The relevance managementsystem 230 we disclose herein performs RFP-to-PD relevance determination231, which may assist a contractor 211 in identifying PDs 220 thatrepresent relevant experience with respect to an RFP, for use in aproposal. Said RFP-to-PD relevance determination 231 may also assist acontractor (Ref. 210 or 211) in identifying an RFP that represents arelevant work opportunity with respect to a PD.

A second critical task a potential prime contractor 211 may need toperform is capability gap determination 232, to identify any RFP 221requirements for which said prime contractor does not have in-housecapabilities (or for which said prime contractor's team does not havecollective capabilities). The relevance management system 230 mayfurther process results of RFP-to-PD relevance determination 231 todetermine contractor capabilities; said contractor capabilities may becompared to RFP requirements to identify capability gaps. To eliminatesaid capability gaps, a prime contractor may broaden its search of PDs220, such as to include PDs that belong to subcontractors, to identifypotential teammates with relevant experience (as represented by a PD),who may be brought on-board the team to fill a capability gap.

A relevance management system 230 may use results such as RFP-to-PDrelevance 231 and contractor capabilities gaps 232, to facilitate aprocess of prime contractor and subcontractor teaming 233. The relevancemanagement system 230 may enable a prime contractor to rapidly locatesubcontractors with complementary and overlapping capabilities, in orderto fill capability gaps and effectively bolster the prime contractorteam's overall capabilities, respectively. A systematic, quantifiedapproach to teaming enables a prime contractor to propose to a customera higher-quality, better-qualified team, whose experience andcapabilities are proven, and may be verified. In the current state ofthe art, the process of identifying potential subcontractors typicallyinvolves many face-to-face meetings between a prime contractor andsubcontractors, and can incur significant business-development expense.Significant elements of the business development process, such asidentifying subcontractors with complementary and overlappingcapabilities or identifying relevant opportunities, and the costsassociated with these activities, may be eliminated or greatlystreamlined by an embodiment of the present invention, thereby reducingbusiness development costs 240.

A relevance management system 230 may also facilitate the actualproposal development process 234, including the development of proposalartifacts, such as may be used in proposal volumes to be submitted witha proposal. For example, the results from RFP-to-PD relevancedetermination 231 and contractor capability determination 232 may beused to produce tangible artifacts, such as a relevance chart, thatcapture and convey a team's experience and capabilities, which may beincluded in a proposal, and whose automated development may speed-up aproposal development process 234. A net result for a contractor may behigher proposal win rates that increase revenue and profits 240.

FIG. 3 generally depicts a relevance management system 310, inaccordance with an exemplary embodiment of the invention, advantageouslysupporting a distributed end user base. We disclose in reference to FIG.3 how multiple contractors (such as a first contractor 321 or a secondcontractor 331, which correspond to a contractor 211 in FIG. 2) may usefunctionality of a relevance management system 310, such as to identifythe experience and capabilities of potential team members, who may begeographically distributed 340, including internationally, byinteracting with (via a first interaction 311 or a second interaction312) a relevance management system 310. For example, a prime contractor,such as a first contractor 321 or a second contractor 331, may use arelevance management system 310 to identify, communicate with, and bringonboard potential team members (illustrated for a prime contractor 321,as a first subcontractor 322, a second subcontractor 323, and a thirdsubcontractor 324, who correspond to a group of contractors 210) withsignificantly reduced business development costs, as compared to currentapproaches that may rely on e.g. social networking, traveling to pre-RFPcustomer conferences to (hopefully) identify potential qualifiedpartners, or other types of interactions that may involve significantface-to-face, voice-to-voice, or other types of communication.

FIG. 4 generally depicts in further detail a relevance management system430, in accordance with an exemplary embodiment of the invention,disclosing further detail including relationships between components ofPD 410 and RFP 420 inputs, a relevance management system 430, and aproposal 440 that a prime contractor may be preparing, in response to anRFP 420. In reference to FIG. 4 we also disclose further detail onseveral challenges (Ref 431, 432, 433, and 434) an end user may facewhen preparing a proposal 440 in response to an RFP 420, which arelevance management system 430 may address. Such challenges includeidentifying a relevant PD from a potentially large collection of PDs 410or identifying a relevant RFP from a potentially large collection ofRFPs, such as may be performed by RFP-to-PD relevance determination 431;identifying team capabilities, such as may be performed by contractorcapability and gap determination 432; facilitating prime contractor andsubcontractor teaming 433; and preparing proposal volumes, which may beperformed by proposal development process facilitation 434.

Regarding components of an RFP 420, an EC 423 provides guidance on howan evaluator will evaluate prior and current experience presented in aproposal. Typically, said experience needs to be of similar “size,scope, and complexity” to the work called for in a SOW 421. In addition,a PPI 422 component will generally provide guidance to a primecontractor on how past performance experience shall be submitted in aproposal 440. Typically, such PPI instructions require a primecontractor to provide a Past Performance volume 443, which may need toinclude a handful of (generally, three to five, however such number maybe higher or lower) past performance references, which are typicallybrief (normally, one to two pages) descriptions of relevant projects.One of the key goals of identifying relevant PDs 431 is to identify thehandful of projects (such as represented by PDs), which may comprise aPast Performance Volume 443, that will be evaluated most favorably.

Regarding identifying a relevant PD or RFP 431, relevance may be aqualitative or quantitative measure of how well a prior (or current)project or contract demonstrates experience performing work that issimilar to future work requirements, such as specified in a SOW 421 ofan RFP. For example, how similar is an instance of previous workexperience, such as represented in a prime contractor 411 orsubcontractor 413 PD, to work elements as called for in a SOW 421? Forexample, if a SOW 421 includes requirements to provide “Help Desk” phoneservices for a specific Government customer, are there PDs 410 that aprime contractor can use in their proposal that represent directexperience (or indirectly, via one of their subcontractors) in providingsimilar “Help Desk” type services? Perhaps comparable services foranother Government agency? Identifying a relevant PD 431 that will beevaluated favorably may not be a simple task, as a medium to large-sizedcontractor may have hundreds or even thousands of prior contracts todraw upon, each of which may have provided a multitude of services orproducts. Such prior and current contract projects may be represented asPDs 410.

Regarding identifying team capabilities 432 and the set of PDs that maybe considered 410, a prime contractor may need to identify SOW 421requirements, or other requirements, for which it does not havecapabilities, referred to as capability gaps, for which said primecontractor may increase the size of its team by bringing on-boardteammates as subcontractors 433, to fill such gaps. Broadening a searchfor experience and capabilities, to include not only PDs of a primecontractor 411, but also PDs 413 from multiple subcontractors 412, maysignificantly increase the number of PDs under consideration. Similarly,at any given time, a contractor may have the opportunity to considerbidding on any of a large number of RFPs that cover a broad range ofwork requirements. Which of these RFPs represent the best opportunity tobid upon, that represent the best match with the contractor'sexperience, such as represented in a PD?

Regarding components of a proposal 440, a proposal 440 will typicallyinclude a Management Volume 441, Technical Volume 442, and Cost Volume444, each of which is generally evaluated according to guidance in an EC423. Typically, such volumes may be evaluated more favorably (i.e.,given a higher score) if the content in said volumes is “substantiated”by examples, such as how a contractor (including subcontractor teammembers) has performed work that is of similar “size, scope, andcomplexity”. For example, a Technical Volume 442 is where a contractortypically presents a proposed solution to meet SOW 421 requirements. Indescribing how SOW 421 work will be performed, it may be to acontractor's benefit to present their experience performing similarwork, for example by inserting short excerpts (e.g., sentences that maybe taken from PDs that are included in a Past Performance Volume 443)into a Management 441, Technical 442 or Cost 444 Volume, to substantiate(i.e., demonstrate) the contractor's ability to provide the requiredservices. A relevance management system 430 may facilitate the task ofidentifying short excerpts from PDs, so they may be inserted into saidvolumes by a proposal writing team, including by generating proposalartifacts, such as a detailed work plan that incorporates relevantinformation from PDs, as we disclose in reference to FIG. 105, FIG. 106,FIG. 107, FIG. 108, and FIG. 109.

Thus we can see the usefulness of a relevance management system 430,such as we disclose in the present invention, which may assist a primecontractor in identifying relevant PDs and RFPs 431 and identifying teamcapabilities and gaps 432; that draws upon inputs that may include, butare not limited to, project descriptions 410 and RFPs 420; and may alsofacilitate a prime contractor in constructing a team 433 and inpreparing a 434 proposal volume 440.

At a fundamental level, a relevance management system 430 may help aprime contractor to identify a work opportunity, such as represented byan RFP, and to identify, understand, and manage the experience andcapabilities it may draw upon, as may be represented by PDs 410, bothfrom within its organization 411, as well as from externalsubcontractors 413, which may be helpful in responding to an RFP 420with a proposal 440.

Relevance Framework Premise Framework for Establishing DemonstratedExperience and Proven Capability

A key premise that enables a relevance management system 430 is that acontractor may effectively show “demonstrated experience” performingwork, such as described in SOW requirements 421, by providing orreferencing in their proposal a PD 410, or other suitablerepresentation, that establishes a contractor as having previouslyperformed work that is similar to said SOW 421 requirements. The PD 410establishes such experience, and may serve as proof of experience;without a relevant PD 410, claimed experience may be unverifiable, amisrepresentation of work previously performed, or even a false claim.In short, “a relevant PD represents demonstrated experience”.

A second key premise that enables a relevance management system 430 isthat a contractor may effectively demonstrate a “capability” to performwork, such as described in SOW requirements 421, by having performedsaid work previously, namely through demonstrated experience.

Thus we can summarize these two premises as the following disclosure:(1) If a contractor has a PD 410 that is relevant to an area, it impliesthey have Demonstrated Experience in said area; and (2) if a contractorhas at least one example of Demonstrated Experience in an area, itimplies they have a Proven Capability to perform work in said area. Thisis represented below with “implies” represented as a “

” symbol:

-   -   (1) Relevant PD        Demonstrated Experience    -   (2) Demonstrated Experience        Proven Capability

Combining these two premises, we may infer and disclose that: (3) If acontractor has a PD 410 that is relevant to an area, it implies theyhave the Proven Capability to perform work in said area.

-   -   (3) Relevant PD        Proven Capability

Note that premises (1) and (3) are both driven by a tangible input,namely the existence of a relevant PD. For example, a contractor mayprove it has “demonstrated experience” by providing a relevant PD 410(as proof), and similarly, may show that it has a “proven capability” byproviding the associated relevant PDs 410 (again, as proof). Note thatthe functionality we disclose to demonstrate the results of (1) and (3)(Demonstrated Experience, and Proven Capability, respectively) is quitedifferent than, and much stronger than, an unsubstantiated claim made bya contractor that it has “experience” performing specific work, or the“capability” to perform such work. The premise framework that wedisclose above, upon which a relevance management system 430 may bebased, provides a clear, unambiguous way for a contractor tosubstantiate (i.e., prove) such claims, through relevant PDs 410.Broadly speaking, we disclose a relevance management system 430 that mayuse the disclosed premise framework to identify an RFP that is relevantto one or more PDs; as well as to identify one or mote PDs that arerelevant to an RFP 410, which may be used to establish “demonstratedexperience” and “proven capabilities” for contractors, which may beuseful in preparing a proposal.

To clarify these concepts, it is useful to disclose a structure that mayrepresent a typical PD and a typical RFP, and disclose how a relevancemanagement system 430 may use the premise framework to establish“demonstrated experience” and “proven capabilities” using a PD and anRFP.

PD and RFP Structure

FIG. 5 generally depicts and discloses a structure that represents anexample project description (PD) 510, in accordance with an exemplaryembodiment of the invention, showing that said exemplar PD structurecontains two major sections, a first section describing projectmanagement 520 being a description of a work element performed to managean example project, and a second section describing a work elementperformed for software development 530, on said example project. Delvingfurther into the structure, we can see that a contractor who may havedeveloped said PD has further broken down the section on softwaredevelopment 530 into three constituent subsections, which represent workelements that were performed; in this example these are a requirementsphase 540, a design phase 550, and a construction phase 560. Each of theelements (Ref 520 through 560) of the PD structure 510 may representsentences or paragraphs in a project description, such as a paper orelectronic document, or other suitable content or representation, thatdescribe work that was performed for a project for said element. Forexample, a project management element 520 may represents one or moresentences or paragraphs that describe how a contractor managed aproject; for example, that a “Team Leader managed a staff of softwaredevelopers, provided a customer with daily updates on progress, anddeveloped and delivered a weekly written status report that describedthat week's achievements and planned activities for the coming week.”

We observe in this example that the terminology a contractor has used todescribe project work elements that are represented in the PD 510, aretypical of such terms used in industry (e.g. terms such as “softwaredevelopment”, “requirements phase”, and so on); however, such terms arenot part of a prescribed, rigid, or standard lexicon. For example, onthis particular project example, a contract may have referred to a taskof developing software modules as “Software Development”, rather thanusing an analogous term such as “Software Engineering” or “ModuleConstruction”. Thus, the example project description, and correspondingterms used in a PD 510, may reflect a broad range of customerterminology, such as used on a contract.

FIG. 6 generally depicts and discloses a structure that represents anexample request for proposal (RFP) 610, in accordance with an exemplaryembodiment of the invention, which has been simplified here to focusonly on a Statement of Work (SOW) 620 contained in an RFP 610; the PPI422 and EC 423 that would normally be part of an RFP are not shown. Herewe can see that a SOW element 620 represents requirements for two workelements, “SOW 1—Develop Software” 630 and “SOW 2—Manage the Project”670. As is typical of an RFP, a SOW work element that describes complexrequirements (such as “SOW 1—Develop Software”, in this case) has beenbroken down further into its constituent work elements that representmore-detailed requirements, namely work elements that containrequirements for “SOW 1.1 Perform Design” 640, “SOW 1.2 Develop Modules”650, and “SOW 1.3 Perform Testing” 660. Each such element may representsentences or paragraphs in a SOW, such as a paper or electronicdocument, or other suitable content or representation, that describe indetail the work to be performed.

As with the PD shown in FIG. 5, the terminology a customer has used, andwhich are reflected in the RFP structure in FIG. 6, to describe SOWrequirements (e.g., SOW 1—Develop Software 630, SOW 1.1 Perform Design640, and so on) are typical of those used in industry, but are not partof a prescribed, rigid, or standard lexicon. In this example, a customermay simply be expressing SOW requirements using terminology familiar toits organization. Also, the ordering of requirements within an RFP, suchas those within a SOW, and the corresponding order within an RFPstructure 610, is not prescribed, but instead may follow an order thatmakes sense to a customer. For example, this customer has put the“technical” work within the SOW as a first element (“SOW 1—DevelopSoftware” 630), followed by “management” work as a second element (“SOW2—Manage the Project” 670). An RFP developed by a different customer (orindeed, this very same customer) could have just as easily switchedorder; similarly, said customer could prepare a second RFP for similarwork (for example), in which the SOW element order was also switched. Inshort, as we disclose, there is no single, prescribed order in which RFPelements, including such as within a SOW, must be specified by acustomer.

Overview of System and Methods to Determine RFP-To-PD Relevance

For clarity of the specification, and as we disclose in further detailin reference to FIG. 114, a relevance management system 430 may definerelevance as a bidirectional, transitive relationship between twoentities; thus when we determine, for example, “RFP to PD relevance”,the information contained therein may be used to determine and expressthe complementary relationship “PD to RFP relevance”, and vice versa.

In responding to example RFP requirements, such as illustrated in anexemplar RFP in FIG. 6, a contractor may need to determine if a PD 510,such as the example illustrated in FIG. 5, is relevant. A subject matterexpert (SME) who was to review the PD represented in FIG. 5 and the RFPrepresented in FIG. 6 would immediately notice similarity across workelements, despite differences in terminology. For example, the projectdescription of work performed for Project Management (associated with anelement 520) may correspond to RFP requirements in “SOW 2—Manage theProject” (associated with an element 670). Similarly, the projectdescription of work performed for Design Phase (associated with anelement 550) may correspond to RFP requirements in “SOW 1.1—PerformDesign” (associated with an element 670); and so on.

As we disclose in further detail below, a relevance management system430 may use multiple methods to identify similarity between RFP and PDwork elements. A relevance management system 430 may use a method thatmakes use of techniques, now known or hereafter developed, such asdocument similarity matching techniques, to directly identify elementsof an RFP and a PD that are similar, and thus relevant to one another(i.e., experience represented in said PD is comparable to acorresponding RFP requirement). Such a method broadly discloses directmatch processing as depicted in FIG. 20. A relevance management system430 may also use a second, indirect method, which may include saidsystem prompting an end user who is a subject-matter expert (SME) toefficiently capture and store specific PD information, and also tocapture and store specific RFP information. Said second, indirect methodmay then automatically process said captured or stored information torapidly estimate relevance of a PD to an RFP. Such a method broadlydiscloses template-based match processing as depicted in FIG. 110. Bothof these methods eliminate a need for a SME to perform manual,time-consuming determination of relevance of an RFP to a PD, and viceversa, in a relevance management system 430.

Determining Relevance of a PD to an RFP

FIG. 7 generally depicts a single-row relevance comparison chart 710, inaccordance with an exemplary embodiment of the invention, sometimesreferred to as a relevance chart or comparison table, that a relevancemanagement system 430 may advantageously use to represent the relevanceof a PD 510 to an RFP 610. In reference to FIG. 7, we disclose a PDrepresented by a single row 720, which contains an incomplete row of“black diamonds” (“♦”) 720, whose columns 730 correspond to elements ofan RFP SOW 620. The existence of an indicator, such as a black diamondin a row 720, for example a black diamond beneath “SOW 2—Manage theProject” 740 SOW element, is intended to convey that a PD is relevant tosaid SOW element; as disclosed above, a PD 510 description of workperformed for Project Management 520 may correspond to RFP 610requirements in “SOW 2—Manage the Project” 670. Similarly, a blackdiamond beneath the “SOW 1.1 Perform Design” 750 SOW element is intendedto indicate the PD is also relevant to that SOW element; a similarrelationship holds for all black diamonds in a row 720. Thus a relevancechart 710 shows how a PD 510 is relevant to an RFP 610. In other words,a relevance chart 710 illustrates how a PD 510 represents demonstratedexperience performing SOW work areas 620 for those SOW work areas inwhich a black diamond appears 720. In the exemplar we disclose inreference to FIG. 7, the example PD looks like a “reasonably good match”to the RFP, as it covers four of the five SOW work areas.

Determining Relevance of Multiple PDs to an RFP

FIG. 8 generally depicts an extension of the relevance chart depicted inFIG. 7, in accordance with an exemplary embodiment of the invention, anddiscloses a relevance chart to represent the relevance of an RFP tomultiple PDs. Here we can see that the single PD 720 from FIG. 7corresponds in FIG. 8 to Project Description 1 822. The exemplarrelevance chart depicted in FIG. 8 shows the relevance of an RFP to fivePDs (Ref. 821 through 825). For now, we may consider the number ofindicators in a row, such as black diamonds (Ref. 821 through 825) inthis example, as a measure of the degree of relevance of a PD to an RFP.Thus, we observe that Project Description 3 821 has the highest degreeof relevance, as indicated by five black diamonds that appear in its row821; said PD 821 is indicated as being relevant to all five RFP SOWareas. Similarly, Project Description 1 822 and Project Description 5823 each have four black diamonds; while Project Description 2 824 andProject Description 4 825 have two and one black diamonds, respectively.These rows (Ref. 821 through 825) have been ordered in the relevancechart 820 by degree of relevance, as indicated by the column titledRelevance Ranking 830. A relevance chart 810, such as the exemplar wedisclose in reference to FIG. 8, provides a quick and intuitive way tovisualize and understand the relative suitability of PDs for use inresponding to an RFP, as it ranks each PD according to its relevance toan RFP.

Determining a Capability Gap

FIG. 9 generally depicts a modification of the relevance chart depictedin FIG. 8, in accordance with an exemplary embodiment of the invention,and discloses a relevance chart that represents project ownership, andwhich may be used to determine a capability gap. The relevance chartexemplar depicted in FIG. 9 presents information on the same example PDsas shown in FIG. 8, but here a relevance ranking column 830 has beenreplace with a new column indicating PD owner 930. In the exemplardepicted in FIG. 9, the PD owner column 930 shows whether a PD is ownedby a prime contractor (whose name is “PRIME”, in this example), asubcontractor number one (whose name is abbreviated to “SUB 1”), or asubcontractor number two (abbreviated “SUB 2”), where ownership is meantto convey a relationship, such as “performed the work described in acorresponding PD”, or “was awarded a contract to perform the workdescribed in a corresponding PD”, or other type of relationship. Theorder of rows 920 in the relevance chart has also been updated, so thatPDs are grouped by owner; for example, rows one 921 and two 922represent PDs that belong to a prime contractor (“PRIME”); rows three923 and four 924 represent PDs that belong to subcontractor number one(“SUB 1”); and row five 925 represents a PD that belongs tosubcontractor number two (“SUB 2”).

A relevance management system 430 may identify a capability gap for aparticular RFP SOW area (such as a first 941, second 942, third 943,fourth 944, or fifth 945 SOW area, in this example), for a particularPD, or collection of PDs, such as PDs owned by a particular owner, bydetermining, for each said RFP SOW area, whether none of the relevancechart rows (or, a single row) associated with the said particular PD, orsaid collection of PDs, contain an indictor, such as a black diamond,for the said RFP SOW area. For example, we can use such a capability gapdetermination disclosure to determine (and verify by inspection) thatfor the PDs that belong to prime contractor “Prime”, namely ProjectDescription 1 921 and Project Description 2 922, neither of the PDs hasa black diamond in column 944, which corresponds to SOW 1.3 PerformTesting. Thus, prime contractor Prime has a capability gap for SOW 1.3Perform Testing, in this example.

Regarding the identification of a PD that may (or a PD owner, whosecapabilities may) be used to fill a capability gap for a SOW area, wedisclose a similar processes that may be used, in which we identify,such as in a relevance chart, a PD (or, a PD owner) that has anindicator, such as a black diamond, for said SOW area. Using such aprocess, we observe, in this example, that there are three projectdescriptions, all of which happen to belong to subcontractors, which maybe used to fill the prime contractor's capability gap for SOW 1.3Perform Testing. Specifically, both of the project descriptions fromsubcontractor number one (Ref. 923 and 924) have an indicator (a blackdiamond, in this case) in the column 944 corresponding to SOW 1.3Perform Testing; also, Project Description 5 925 from subcontractornumber 2 has a black diamond in the column 944 corresponding to SOW 1.3Perform Testing. Any one of these PDs (Ref 923, 924, or 925) would besufficient for the prime contractor to fill the capability gap. Havingidentified the PDs that may be used to fill a capability gap, and havingan understanding of the ownership of said PDs, a prime contractor is nowin a position to contact said PD owners (such as subcontractor numberone, or subcontractor number two, in this example) to discuss bringingone or more of them onboard the prime contractor's team, to fill acapability gap.

Determining PD Owner Capabilities

FIG. 10 generally depicts a modification of the relevance chart depictedin FIG. 9, in accordance with an exemplary embodiment of the invention,and discloses a relevance chart that may be used to represent PD ownercapabilities, such as may be determined from PD experience, and whichmay further be used to determine team capability gaps.

We first motivate a relevance chart such as shown in FIG. 10, which maybe useful to a prime contractor when using a relevance management system430. Broadly speaking, a prime contractor may consider many criteriawhen bringing a potential subcontractor onboard as a teammate, includingwhether said subcontractor brings complementary or overlappingcapabilities that bolster the overall team's ability to receive a highscore during proposal evaluation. We note that the criteria a primecontractor may consider for such subcontractor teaming may include notonly technical capabilities, but also cost considerations. For example,although two subcontractors may provide technically equivalentcapabilities, the cost a first subcontractor may charge to provide saidcapability may be quite different than that of a second subcontractor,which may be due to different structures for overhead rates or otherconsiderations such as discounts that a subcontractor may provide.However, a vital piece of information a prime contractor may considerduring such teaming negotiations is the capabilities that each potentialsubcontractor brings to a team. To meet this need, we disclose inreference to the relevance chart in FIG. 10 a method to determine thecapabilities, with respect an RFP, of a PD owner, such as primecontractor or a subcontractor.

The exemplar relevance chart depicted in FIG. 10 builds upon the sameexample information used in FIG. 9 (and FIG. 8, before it), replacing acolumn in FIG. 9 that denoted PD ownership 930 and corresponding namesof PDs (e.g., Project Description 1, Project Description 2, and so onthrough Project Description 5) with a column representing PD owners1030, who may represent potential team members as shown by the columnheading “Potential Team Member”, and which in this example consist of aprime contractor (“PRIME”), subcontractor number one (“SUB 1”), andsubcontractor number two (“SUB 2”).

The data to populate a relevance chart such as depicted in FIG. 10 maybe computed by aggregating capabilities of PDs for each PD owner. By“aggregating” capabilities of PDs, we mean that if any of the PDs thatare owned by a contractor indicate demonstrated experience for aparticular SOW area (for example, have a black diamond indicator, inthis case), then the said PD owner has a proven capability in said SOWarea, and thus receives a corresponding indicator, such as a blackdiamond, in said SOW area. For example, reviewing the example data inFIG. 9, the prime contractor has two PDs, Project Description 1 921 andProject Description 2 922 in this example, and we may observe in acolumn 941, corresponding to “SOW 1—Develop Software”, that ProjectDescription 1 has a black diamond indicating demonstrated experience for“SOW 1—Develop Software”, while Project Description 2 does not have ablack diamond indicating “SOW 1—Develop Software” demonstratedexperience. When we aggregate these two PD indicators of demonstratedexperience (a first indicating presence of such experience, a secondindicating absence of such experience) for a prime contractor in thecolumn 1041 representing “SOW 1—Develop Software”, we place anindicator, such as a black diamond, in a column 1041, indicating thatsaid prime contractor has a proven capability (because at least one ofits PDs indicated demonstrated experience in the corresponding column).When we thus “roll up” the combined experience for each potential teammember 1030 across the PDs they own in an analogous manner (experience[Ref. 921 and 922] for a prime contractor; experience [Ref. 923 and 924]for subcontractor number one; and experience 925 for subcontractornumber two), we may determine the capability for each PD owner (shown ina first 1021, second 1022, and third 1023 capability chart row,respectively).

Regarding identifying team capability gaps, and how a contractor, suchas a prime contractor, may best fill such a capability gap, we disclosea method in reference to FIG. 97 that addresses these items. We disclosein reference to FIG. 10 a simplified method, in which we may identify acapability gap as a SOW area that does not have a capability indicatorfor a PD owner (or a set of PD owners) that represents a team. Inreference to FIG. 10, if we consider the prime contractor 1021 asconstituting the current team, we can use this simplified teamcapability gap determination method to identify a capability gap for SOW1.3 Perform Testing 1044 for said prime contractor, by the absence of acapability indicator, such as a black diamond in this case, for saidprime contractor for SOW area 1044. Similarly, we may use this method todetermine a PD owner that has the capability to fill said capabilitygap, as indicated by said PD owner having an indicator in the SOW areafor said capability gap.

Using these methods, we can see in the example depicted in FIG. 10, thatboth subcontractor number one and subcontractor number two have thecapability to fill the prime contractor's capability gap for SOW 1.3Perform Testing. When a prime contractor is considering whichsubcontractor to bring onboard as a team member, a relevance chart suchas we disclose in reference to FIG. 10, may be used to convey to a primecontractor that a first subcontractor, such as subcontractor number one1022 in this example, brings “stronger” relevant capabilities than doessecond subcontractor, such as subcontractor number two 1023 in thisexample, which may be determined by computing the overall relevance ofeach subcontractor's capabilities. We may use a number of methods tocompute the overall relevance of each subcontractor's capabilities,including, but not limited to, summing across indicators, which in anembodiment variation may count the number of indicators, such as blackdiamonds. Using such an embodiment variation, on the data shown in FIG.10, we may determine that the capabilities of a first subcontractor(subcontractor number one) 1022 include five black diamonds, whereasthose of a second subcontractor (subcontractor number two) 1023 includeonly four black diamonds; as such, a relevance management system 430 mayidentify, in this exemplar, subcontractor number one as bringing“stronger” capabilities than subcontractor number two. Results such asthese, which may be conveyed to an end user using a relevance chart suchas depicted in FIG. 10, may be useful, and may serve to motivate a primecontractor to consider as a high priority bringing a first subcontractoronto a team, with pursuit of a second subcontractor being a lowerpriority, or fallback option.

Relevance Management System and Modular Components

FIG. 11 generally depicts a relevance management system, in accordancewith an exemplary embodiment of the invention, disclosing further detailregarding users (Ref. 1110, 1120, and 1130), inputs (Ref. 1111, 1121,and 1131), and a relevance management system 1140, which may becomprised of modules (such as a first 1141, second 1142, third 1143,fourth 1144, and fifth 1145 module).

Regarding users depicted in FIG. 11, we further disclose that an enduser 1110 (which corresponds to a first user 210) associated with a PD1111 (which corresponds to a PD 220), may be referred to as a“capability-providing” end user; and that an end user 1130 (whichcorresponds to a second user 211) associated with an RFP 1131 (whichcorresponds to an RFP 221), may be referred to as a “capability-seeking”end user. Generally speaking, a prime contractor is often referred to asa “capability-seeking end user”, and a subcontractor may often bereferred to as a “capability-providing end user”. In addition, wedisclose an administrative user 1120, who may prepare, operate, andmaintain a relevance management system 1140, such as for use by endusers (Ref. 1110, and 1130).

Regarding an administrative user 1120, we disclose that said user mayperform multiple roles; a first may be to perform general administrativefunctions enabled by an administration module 1141, such as to operateand maintain a relevance management system 1140; and a second may be todevelop and enter templates that may used within a relevance managementsystem 1140, such as in a processing module 1145, using various inputs,such as business and technical documents from the contracting domain1121.

Further regarding users in FIG. 11, in disclosing a capability-providingend user 1110, capability-seeking end user 1130, or administrative user1140, as well as roles and activities each may perform, we contemplatean alternative embodiment in which proxies may perform such roles andactivities for each such said users. Such proxies may include, but arenot limited to, an alternate individual, organization, system, orservice that may perform such a role or activity on behalf of the saiduser. For example, an organization that specializes in data entry, orwhich has specialized subject-matter expertise, may enter into abusiness relationship with an end user, and perform a role or activityon behalf of said end user as a proxy. In the specification for thepresent invention we consider such a proxy as representing saidcorresponding user, without loss of generality, and such embodiments areintended to be within the scope of the present invention.

Regarding a relevance management system 1140, we disclose that saidsystem 1140 may be comprised of modules, which may include, but are notlimited to, an administration module 1141, a controller module 1142, aninterface module 1143, a communication module 1144, and a processingmodule 1145. Broadly speaking, an administration module 1141 may providefunctionality, such as for system operation and maintenance; acontroller module 1142 may provide functionality, such as to implementhigh-level business logic and overall application-level workflow, andmay call upon the services of a display 1143, communications 1144, andprocessing 1145 module, or other module, which may providefunctionality, such as to implement functionality provided to a user(Ref 1110, 1120, or 1130), or other functionality. We disclose thefunctionality of these modules (Ref 1141 through 1144) in turn below.

Administration Module

Regarding an administration module 1141, said module may be used by anadministrative user 1120 to operate and maintain a relevance managementsystem 1140. Key functionality an administrative module 1141 may provideincludes, but is not limited to:

User Administration: Creating accounts, such as that may enable an enduser (Ref. 1110 and 1130) to interact with a relevance management system1140, such as in a role of capability-providing end user orcapability-seeking end user, respectively.

System Administration: Performing general systems operation andmaintenance, such as backing-up of data associated with a relevancemanagement system 1140; as well as archiving and removal of data that isno longer used for system operation; or other operations.

Billing: Implementing functionality, such as to track usage, in arelevance management system 1140, of end users (Ref 1110 and 1130), andsupporting processing of such usage information, which may include, butis not limited to, supporting billing or charging, such as of said endusers or associated entities.

Controller Module

Regarding a controller module 1142, said module may implement high-levelbusiness logic and overall application-level workflow, and may call uponthe services of a display 1143, communications 1144, and processing 1145module, such as to implement functionality provided to a user (Ref.1110, 1120, or 1130), or other functionality. Functionality that acontroller module 1142 may provide includes, but is not limited to:

Standard Template (ST) Data Entry Process: Enabling a user, such as anadministrative user 1120, to develop and enter templates into arelevance management system 1140, using input, such as business andtechnical documents from the contracting domain 1121, and other sources.

PD Data Entry Process: Enabling capability-providing end users 1110 toenter PDs 1111 into a relevance management system 1140.

RFP Data Entry Process: Enabling capability-seeking end users 1130 toenter RFPs 1131 into a relevance management system 1140.

Template Processing: Enabling capability-providing end users 1110 andcapability-seeking end users 1130 to specify in a relevance managementsystem 1140 how elements of PDs 1111 and RFPs 1131, respectively, relateto elements of an ST, which may be used during template processing.

Processing Operations Sequencing: Sequencing of operations within arelevance management system 1140, to include shepherding of PD and RFPinstances through multiple processing steps, such as we disclose inreference to FIG. 20 and FIG. 110, which may include, but are notlimited to:

-   -   Direct Match Processing (Determining PD relevance to an RFP).    -   Extract Transform Load (ETL) processing, to transform relevance        results into a format that efficiently supports filtering,        ranking, and aggregation.    -   Capability Determination Processing (Determining contractor        capability rankings for an RFP)    -   RFP Relevance Determination Processing (Determining RFP        relevance rankings for a PD)    -   Template-Based Match Processing (Estimating PD relevance to an        RFP).

FIG. 12 generally depicts a process, in accordance with an exemplaryembodiment of the invention, disclosing how a controller module 1142 maysequence operations of a relevance management system 1140, by performingsteps in the indicated order, or in other orders.

As shown in FIG. 12, when processing begins 1205, a user, such as anadministrative user, may prepare and manage a relevance managementsystem 1140. As we disclose in further detail in reference to ST dataentry 1411, FIG. 23, FIG. 24, FIG. 111, and FIG. 112, a user may enteran ST into a relevance management system 1140 (Ref. 2020), components ofwhich, such as a customer descriptor 2314 and work descriptor 11115, mayfacilitate PD 2021 or RFP 2022 data entry, match or template processing(Ref 2040 and 2050; and 11041, 11042, and 11060), or ETL processing2060. A user may also perform standard information technology (IT)administration and maintenance tasks, such as user administration tocreate accounts within a relevance management system 1140, or enablesuch accounts to be created, as well as general system administration.Administrator preparation may include creating an account for an enduser with necessary permissions, such as to enable said end user toaccess information said end user has entered in a relevance managementsystem 1140, or which is associated with said end user, such as matchresults of data associated with said end user.

Next, as we disclose in a step 1215, once an administrator has prepareda relevance management system 1140, a controller module enables an enduser (Ref. 1110 or 1130) to enroll in said system, so that said usersmay operate as a capability-seeking end user, a capability-providing enduser, or as both a capability-seeking and a capability-providing enduser.

Next, as we disclose in two steps (Ref. 1220 and 1225), acapability-providing end user 1110 and a capability-seeking end user1130 may perform data entry (Ref. 2021 and 2022) to enter PDs and RFPsinto a relevance management system 1140 (Ref. 1111 and 1131,respectively). As we disclose in further detail below, a controllermodule 1142 may shepherd entered PDs and RFPs through subsequent matchprocessing 2040 and further processing steps, and may use a “data flow”architecture, or other similar functionality, that monitors foradditional or updated PDs or RFPs entered into a relevance managementsystem 1140 at any time, and may process said new or updated PDs andRFPs. Thus, a first step 1220 and a second step 1225 may be performedessentially in a continual, as-needed, asynchronous manner by an enduser, who may enter into a relevance management system 1140 new PDs orRFPs (and updates to such) as the corresponding PD and RFP documents andassociated content (Ref. 2011 and 2012, respectively) become available(i.e., such as an end user develops a new project description 180, or acustomer distributes a new RFP 130).

Next, as we disclose in a step 1230, a controller module 1142 may enablea relevance management system 1140 to perform match processing ortemplate processing, which may consist of direct match processing 2040,as well as template processing (Ref. 2050; and FIG. 110). Using suchmatch or template processing techniques, a relevance management system1140 may determine the relevance of an RFP to a PD (and vice versa).

Next, as we disclose in a step 1235, using relevance results that may bestored in a relevance data store 2045, and possibly in collaborationwith relevance advisor processing 11080, a controller module 1142 mayenable ETL processing 2060, which generally may involve transformingrelevance results stored in a relevance data store 2045 into a formatthat efficiently supports filtering, ranking, and aggregation (i.e.,roll-up and drill-down) of relevance results.

Next, as we disclose in a step 1240, a controller module 1142 may notifyan end user (e.g., a first user 1110 or a second user 1130) of a match arelevance management system 1140 has identified for a PD or RFP withwhich said end user is associated. A controller module 1142 may workwith a communication module 1144 to inform an end user of said match,and may use techniques such as we disclose in reference to FIG. 18.

Next, as we disclose in a step 1245, a controller module 1142 and aninterface module 1143 may provide an end user a variety of ways tointerface with and navigate relevance results, such as may be stored ina relevance cube 2070, including, but not limited to, capabilitydetermination processing 2080, or RFP relevance determination processing2085. An end user may view relevance results 1245 using a variety ofinterfaces, including such as we disclose in reference to FIG. 49, FIG.50, FIG. 51, FIG. 52, FIG. 58, FIG. 60, and FIG. 61. A relevancemanagement system 1140 may support filtering and ranking, and maysupport roll-up and drill-down for navigation and summarization ofrelevance, experience, and capability results.

Next, as we disclose in a step 1250, a controller module 1142 may enablean end user to construct a team 1250 using team construction processing2090, which may include using interface such as we disclose in referenceto FIG. 97 to identify team member experience or capabilities, as wellas experience or capabilities gaps.

Next, as we disclose in a step 1255, a controller module 1142 may nextbroker and facilitate teaming, which may include enabling incrementalcommunication between RFP and PD owners, such as we disclose inreference to FIG. 19.

Next, as we disclose in a step 1260, a controller module 1142 maygenerate proposal artifacts, which may include using results producedvia team construction processing (Ref 2090; and FIG. 97), or such asstored in a relevance data store 2045 or relevance cube 2070, to developdocuments that may be useful in preparing proposal volumes (Ref. 434 and440), using functionality we disclose in reference to FIG. 105, FIG.106, FIG. 107, and FIG. 109.

Next, as we disclose in a step 1265, a controller module 1142 mayinteroperate with an administration module 1141 to track end useractivity within a relevance management system 1140. Said tracking mayinclude, but is not limited to, tracking how many PDs or RFPs said userhas entered into a relevance management system 1140, how many matcheshave been identified for said user over a given time period, or othersuch measures of system usage and utility. A relevance management system1140 may use such metrics to support activities such as, but not limitedto, billing; business development, such as to demonstrate current andprospective customers the value of said system to said customers; or forother purposes.

Finally, as we disclose in a step 1270, a controller module 1142 may endprocessing 1270, or may resume processing, such as performing one ormore processing steps, such as disclosed in reference to FIG. 12.

Interface Module

We first disclose, in reference to FIG. 11, overall functionality aninterface module may provide, and then disclose, in reference to FIG.13, further detail regarding an organization of interfaces that may beused in a relevance management system 1140.

Regarding an interface module 1143, such as shown in FIG. 11, saidmodule may provide functionality through which a user, such as anadministrative user 1120, or an end user (Ref 1110 and 1130) mayinteract with a relevance management system 1140. An interface module1143 may provide functionality that includes, but is not limited to:

Input of Data to a Relevance Management System: Data input, includinguser (Ref. 1110, 1120, and 1130) commands and interactions (such as viaa computer keyboard, computer mouse, touch-sensitive computer display,or other input device) to control operations of a relevance managementsystem 1140.

Output of Data from a Relevance Management System: Data output,including methods to visualize or otherwise represent current systemstatus, such as results of processing and communication, as well asoptions for a user to select from which may serve as input to arelevance management system 1140, including commands an end user mayperform, which may be displayed or otherwise presented to users (Ref1110, 1120, and 1130).

FIG. 13 generally depicts an interface module, in accordance with anexemplary embodiment of the invention, disclosing further detailregarding an organization of interfaces that may be used in a relevancemanagement system 1140, such as to support interaction with users (Ref.1110, 1120, and 1130), or other users.

We disclose in reference to FIG. 13 a framework that may include, but isnot limited to, interfaces that a controller module 1142 and aninterface module 1143 may generate and present to an end user to providebusiness functionality. We disclose a main menu interface 1310 that mayserve as an entry point to overall business functionality, providing toa user (Ref. 1110, 1120, and 1130) interface options to executefunctionality that may include, but is not limited to systemadministration 1320; ST, PD, and RFP data entry 1330; match processing1340 to determine relevance relationships between PDs and RFPs; viewingrelevance results 1350; or facilitation of teaming 1360 between endusers (Ref 1110 and 1130). We disclose below the functionality of thesefive exemplary interface options in turn.

Regarding an administration interface 1320, we disclose that saidinterface may enable a user, such as an administrative user 1120, tomanage a relevance management system 1140 using functionality providedin an administration module 1141. Such administration interface 1320 mayprovide an interface for user administration, system administration,billing, or other functions.

Regarding a data entry interface 1330, we disclose that said interfacemay support an ST 2020, PD 2021, or RFP 2022 data entry process, whichmay enable a user, such as an administrative user 1120, to develop andenter an ST in a relevance management system 1140; enable acapability-providing end user 1110 to enter a PD 1111 into a relevancemanagement system 1140; or a enable capability-seeking end user 1130 toenter an RFP 1131 into a relevance management system 1140, respectively.

Regarding a match processing interface 1340, we disclose that saidinterface may enable an end user to view or determine status, such as ofrelevance processing for PDs and RFPs.

Regarding a relevance results interface 1350, we disclose that saidrelevance results interface may support viewing by end users of proposaland RFP relevance results, which may include capability results computedduring processing (Ref 2080 and 2085).

Regarding a teaming facilitation interface 1360, we disclose that saidteaming facilitation interface may enable a capability-providing enduser 1110 or a capability-seeking end user 1130 to construct teams, aswell as communicate, or collaborate with one another, and which may bebased on results of relevance processing.

FIG. 14 generally depicts a data entry interface, in accordance with anexemplary embodiment of the invention, disclosing further detail on adata entry interface 1330, showing how said interface 1410 may becomprised of sub-interfaces, such as an interface for ST data entry1411, which may correspond to interfaces we disclose in reference toFIG. 24 and FIG. 112; and an interface that may be used for both PD andRFP data entry 1412, which may correspond to an interface such as wedisclose in reference to FIG. 26 and FIG. 31. We describe such dataentry processes in further detail below.

FIG. 15 generally depicts a match processing interface, in accordancewith an exemplary embodiment of the invention, disclosing further detailon a match processing interface 1340. In reference to FIG. 15 wedisclose that said match processing interface may containsub-interfaces, including an interface for relevance processing 1511 oran interface for template processing 1512. We disclose further that arelevance processing interface 1511 may enable an end user to view ordetermine status, such as of relevance processing for PDs and RFPs. Wedisclose further that a template processing interface 1512 may supportPD 11041 or RFP 11042 template pre-processing, which may enable acapability-providing end user 1110 or capability-seeking end user 1130to specify to a relevance management system 1140 how elements of PDs1111 or RFPs 1131, respectively, with which said users may beassociated, relate to elements of an ST.

FIG. 16 generally depicts a relevance results interface (correspondingto an interface 1350), in accordance with an exemplary embodiment of theinvention, disclosing further detail on how said interface may becomprised of sub-interfaces, which when selected, such as from a mainmenu interface 1310, may enable an end user (Ref. 1110 and 1130) to viewhigh-level summaries (Ref. 1620 and 1630) and successively “drill down”into results, including such as into mid-level project-relevancesummaries 1640, and further down into individual proj ect-relevancedetail 1650. Finally, a project relevance detail interface 1650 mayenable an end user (Ref. 1110 and 1130) to drill down even further, toview an original RFP requirement at a SOW-element level 1660 alongside acorresponding SOW-element level substantiation associated with a PD1670. An interface module 1143 may implement a hierarchy of interfaces(such as we disclose in reference to FIG. 16) or provide drill-downfunctionality using common interfaces, which may include, but are notlimited to, embodiments such as we disclose in reference to FIG. 49,FIG. 51, FIG. 58, and FIG. 60.

FIG. 17 generally depicts a teaming facilitation interface(corresponding to an interface 1360), in accordance with an exemplaryembodiment of the invention, disclosing further detail on how a teamingfacilitation interface 1710 may provide multiple sub-interfaces,including for facilitating team construction 1720, or facilitating teamcommunication 1730. We disclose, in reference to FIG. 17, a process forteam construction, and interfaces that may support said process, inreference to FIG. 97 through FIG. 104. A team communication interface1730 may enable an end user to communicate with another user for avariety of reasons. For example, a relevance management system 1140, mayprovide a capability-seeking end user 1130 an ability to contact acapability-providing end user 1110, or vice versa, which may be based onresults of relevance processing, to facilitate teaming discussions, aswe disclose in reference to a first 4943, second 5853, third 6053, andfourth 9742 functionality. As an example, if a capability-seeking enduser 1130 determines that a PD owned by a capability-providing end user1110 can fill a capability gap, said capability-seeking end user 1130may have the ability to contact said PD owner 1110 to discuss thepossibility of bringing said PD owner 1110 on board a team as asubcontractor. We disclose that for an initial contact between end users(such as a first 1110 and second 1130 user), communication may beperformed with a variety of degrees of confidentiality, and for examplemay not have either end user share identity or detailed information withthe other. If both end users are interested in further dialog regardingteaming, for example, said end users may have an ability to share e.g.name or contact info, or other information, including in an incrementalmanner, to facilitate further communication, which may includecommunication internal to a relevance management system 1140, as well ascommunication external to a relevance management system 1140, such asdirect emails, telephone conversations, and so on. A relevancemanagement system 1140 may use such communication functionality,including incremental communication functionality, to broker experienceand capabilities among end users (Ref 1110 and 1130).

Communication Module

We first disclose, in reference to FIG. 11, overall functionality acommunication module may provide, and then disclose, in reference toFIG. 18 and FIG. 19, further detail regarding communication moduleinterfaces that may be used in a relevance management system 1140. Acommunication module 1144 may enable end users (Ref. 1110 and 1130) tocommunicate with one another, which may be facilitated by a controllermodule 1142 and an interface module 1143, which may generate or managethe interfaces and application workflow. A communication module 1144 mayprovide functionality that includes, but is not limited to:

Capability-Providing and Capability-Seeking End User Notification andBrokering: A communications module 1144 may perform notification orbrokering services to inform a capability-seeking end user 1130 when arelevance management system 1140 has determined that a PD has relevanceto an RFP with which said end user is associated. Conversely, acommunications module 1144 may perform notification or brokeringservices to inform a capability-providing end user 1110 when a relevancemanagement system 1140 has determined that an RFP has relevance to a PDwith which said end user is associated. Notification methods mayinclude, but are not limited to:

-   -   Immediate notification messages (e.g., by email, instant        messaging, and other methods) to an end-user (Ref. 1110 and        1130) endpoint external to a relevance management system 1140,        as well as to an end-user (Ref 1110 and 1130) internal to a        relevance management system 1140.    -   Periodic (e.g., morning, hourly, daily) notification messages        (e.g., by email) to an end-user (Ref. 1110 and 1130) endpoint        external to a relevance management system 1140, as well as to an        end-user (Ref 1110 and 1130) internal to a relevance management        system 1140, which may highlight new activity, report, or        summarize activity, such as for PDs or RFPs with which said end        user is associated, or a combination of such highlighting,        reporting, or summarization, or provide other information.    -   A dashboard associated with a relevance management system 1140        that may be accessible to an end-user (Ref. 1110 and 1130),        which highlights new activity, or summarizes activity, such as        for PDs or RFPs with which said end user is associated, or a        combination of such highlighting, reporting, or summarization,        or provide other information.

Confidential Communication and Brokering: A communication module 1144may enable a capability-providing end user 1110 and a capability-seekingend user 1130 to communicate with one other, including in ways that maypreserve the confidentiality (e.g., anonymity), or degree ofconfidentiality, of one or both users:

-   -   A communication module 1144 may enable a capability-providing        end user 1110 to be informed that a PD with which it is        associated matches the experience or capabilities sought by a        capability-seeking end user 1130, without disclosing to said        capability-providing end user 1110 the identity of said        capability-seeking end user 1130.    -   Conversely, a communication module 1144 may enable a        capability-seeking end user 1130 to be informed that a PD        associated with a capability-providing end user 1130 matches the        experience or capabilities in an RFP with which said        capability-seeking end user 1130 is associated, without        disclosing to said capability-seeking end user 1130 the identity        of said capability-providing end user 1110.

Regular Communication and Brokering: A communication module 1144 mayalso enable a capability-providing end user 1110 and acapability-seeking end user 1130 to communicate where the identity ofboth said end users may be disclosed.

Transition from Confidential to Regular Communication and Brokering: Acommunication module 1144 may enable end users (such as a first 1110 anda second 1130 user) to collaboratively come to agreement and transition,possibly using multiple, incremental stages, from confidential toregular communication or brokering.

FIG. 18 generally depicts a brokered relevance notification interface1810, in accordance with an exemplary embodiment of the invention,disclosing further detail on how a relevance management system 1140 maybroker information regarding relevant experience or capabilities, forexample to inform a first end user that a relevance management system1140 has identified a project associated with a second end user that isrelevant to a project associated with said first end user. We disclosein reference to FIG. 18 that the form of an informing message in anotification interface 1810 may be similar to that of an email message,blog entry, or other type of communication, although we contemplate moreelaborate alternative message formats, which may include graphicalelements such a relevance chart, other media idioms, or formats; as wellas simplified alternative message formats, such as may be used by ShortMessage Service (SMS), instant messaging (IM), short character-basedmessages, and other formats. As we disclose in reference to FIG. 18, amessage 1810 may include functionality such as represented by a“Subject” line 1815, or a short introduction 1820, which may state theintended purpose of a communication, as well as information regarding arelevant project that has been identified (Ref. 1830 and 1831). Suchinformation may provide functionality to identify a project associatedwith a message sender (e.g., RFP001 1830 as shown for the “Prime” user1810), as well as a name or other identifying information associatedwith a relevant project 1832, or the owner of a relevant project 1833. Anotification interface 1810 may also provide functionality such anindicator of relevance, such as overall relevance 1834 of an identifiedproject 1831 to a project associated with a message recipient 1830, orother pertinent information. (The “overall relevance” of a project isdisclosed in further detail in reference to FIG. 90.) In a notificationinterface 1810, such communications may provide a message recipient withoptions 1840, the exercise of which may include functionality such as anability 1842 to open or access an indicated project 1830 to viewrelevance results 1341, which may provide functionality, such as to opena project relevance summary interface, such as shown in FIG. 49, orother suitable interface. A notification interface 1810 may provide amessage recipient functionality, such as to select a project indicatedin a message 1831 and contact the associated project owner 1844. An enduser may also close a message interface 1850. We disclose in referenceto FIG. 18 a notification interface 1810 that a relevance managementsystem 1140 may use to inform a capability-seeking end user (“Prime” inthis case) regarding PDs that said system 1140 has identified a project1831 as relevant to an RFP 1830 associated with said capability-seekingend user. Those skilled in the art will recognize that the notificationinterface 1810 we disclose in reference to FIG. 18 may be easilymodified to perform the function of notifying a capability-providing enduser of an RFP a relevance management system 1140 has identified asrelevant to a PD associated with said capability-providing end user(analogous to information provided in FIG. 60) in an alternativeembodiment, and such embodiments are intended to be within the scope ofthe present invention.

FIG. 19 generally depicts a brokered request interface 1910, inaccordance with an exemplary embodiment of the invention, disclosingfurther detail on how a relevance management system 1140 may enable aproject owner (e.g., a PD or RFP owner) to initiate communication withone another, such as opening a dialog between a first and a second enduser regarding a project owned by a first user that a relevancemanagement system 1140 has determined is relevant to a project owned bya second end user. FIG. 19 illustrates a case where a capability-seekingend user (“Prime” in this case) may use functionality (such asrepresented by a first 10345 or a second 4943 functionality) to contacta capability-providing end user (illustrated as an end user “Sub 2” inthis case, owner of PD005). A brokered request interface 1910 mayinclude functionality such as represented by a “Subject” section 1815,or short introduction 1920, which may state an intended purpose of acommunication, as well as information regarding a relevant project thathas been identified. As with the interface we disclosed in reference toFIG. 18, here too in reference to FIG. 19 we contemplate alternativemessage formats that may be used on a brokered request interface 1910,including more elaborate message formats and simplified message formats,such as disclosed in reference to a notification interface 1810.

A brokered request interface 1910 may provide a message recipient withoptions that may include, but are not limited to, functionality 1930 toopen a dialog with a message sender, or to forego such dialog 1940. Forexample, if a message recipient wishes to open a dialog 1930, saidrecipient may be provided with additional functionality, such as theability to send contact information to a message sender, add a messageas part of a response, or to authorize a message sender to accessfurther details of a project. If an end user elects to forego furtherdialog 1940, a relevance management system 1140 may enable a messagerecipient to provide a message to a message sender, which may be usefulin explaining why said message recipient is foregoing further dialog.When a message recipient has completed making selections on an interface1910, said recipient may inform a communications module 1144 to send amessage to an original message sender (i.e., Prime in this case), orcancel the operation 1951. As part of such communication, or possibly infollow-on communications, an original message recipient (e.g., Sub 2 inthis example) may send a “confirmation” message to an original sender(e.g., Prime in this example), indicating that an original messagesender has been confirmed and granted permission to access and usewithin a relevance management system 1140 an identified projectassociated with an original message recipient. Such confirmationtechniques are disclosed in further detail in reference to a “Confirmed”indicator (such as a first indicator 9733 in FIG. 97, or a secondindicator 10344 in FIG. 103) and serve as an indicator that a first anda second end user have communicated regarding access and use (by asecond end user) of a project owned by a first end user, and come toagreement that such access and use is authorized.

Processing Module

FIG. 20 generally depicts a processing module, in accordance with anexemplary embodiment of the invention, disclosing further detail on arelevance management system 1140. We disclose in reference to FIG. 20further detail of a processing module 1145, including an overall flow ofdata through a processing module to perform relevance processing, whichmay include, but is not limited to, key processing elements for dataentry for an ST 2020, a PD 2021, and an RFP 2022, direct matchprocessing 2040, ETL processing 2060, capability determinationprocessing 2080, RFP relevance determination processing 2085, or teamconstruction processing 2090. As we disclose below, a relevancemanagement system 1140 may use an efficient, common structure to storean ST, PD, or RFP.

Generally speaking, we disclose that a relevance management system 1140may make use of multiple types of processing, such as “transaction”processing and “analytic” processing: transaction processing for dataentry and match processing, and analytic processing for capability andrelevance determination processing. Those skilled in the art willrecognize that data-centric information technology (IT) systems areoften classified as either on-line transaction processing (OLTP) systemsor as on-line analytic processing (OLAP) systems, based upon the type ofaccess and updates made to a system's data stores. Broadly speaking, wedisclose that data entry and direct match processing steps (such as afirst 2020, second 2021, and a third 2022 processing step; and a fourthprocessing step 2040, respectively) are most similar to OLTP-typesystems, where data is entered into a relevance management system 1140and “processed” to update various data stores (which may be implementedas relational databases, or other types of data persistencetechnologies). In contrast, we disclose that system processing, such asfor capability determination processing 2080, RFP relevancedetermination processing 2085, and team construction processing 2090,may need to support an end user in visualizing, navigating, aggregating(including hierarchically aggregating), or dynamically filteringcumulative RFP-to-PD relevance data to identify capabilities, orconstruct or compare advantageous teaming arrangements. We recognizethese functions (i.e., visualizing, navigating, aggregating, andfiltering of data) as core OLAP functionality, which may motivate us totransform data to an OLAP-friendly, data warehouse-type format 2070 asit is processed by a relevance management system 1140, to moreeffectively support the interactive nature of capability 2080, relevancedetermination 2085, or team construction 2090 processing.

A processing module, such as shown in FIG. 20, may perform Extract,Transform, and Load (ETL) processing 2060, which may use ETL processingtechniques, now known or hereafter developed, to transform data storedin a relevance data store 2045 from e.g. a relational database format,or other format, to that of a multidimensional database (MDB), or otherformat, commonly referred to as a “data cube”, which a relevancemanagement system 1140 may store in a relevance cube 2070, which mayprovide native support for OLAP-type multidimensional functionality.Thus we disclose in reference to FIG. 20 that capability determinationprocessing 2080, RFP relevance determination processing 2085, or teamconstruction processing 2090 may be driven advantageously in a relevancemanagement system 1140 by a relevance cube 2070.

For clarity of presentation and improved understanding of thespecification of the present invention, we have characterized “frontend” system processing (such as a first 2020, second 2021, and third2022 processing step; and a fourth processing step 2040) as OLTP-type,and the “back-end” system processing (such as a fifth 2080, sixth 2085and seventh processing step 2090) as OLAP-type. Those skilled in the artwill recognize that OLTP and OLAP are in fact part of a continuum ofdata storage, retrieval, and processing techniques that have a longhistory, and which are constantly undergoing change. For example, newer“OLTP databases” may provide OLAP-type functionality, and converselynewer OLAP-type databases may support OLTP functionality. Furthermore,those skilled in the art will recognize that it is possible to implementsystems that provide what we have characterized as “OLTP-type”functionality (data entry, storage, and matching) without usingtraditional OLTP-type technologies (e.g., without relational databases),and similarly that it is possible to implement systems that provide whatwe have characterized as “OLAP-type functionality” without usingtraditional OLAP-type technologies (e.g., without a multidimensionaldatabase), such as by instead performing e.g. “roll-up” and “drill-down”via application-level code. Thus, although we may characterize arelevance management system 1140 as performing OLTP-type or OLAP-typeprocessing, we do not contemplate a limitation that a relevancemanagement system 1140 provide functionality that is implemented with(or, only with) specific or traditional OLTP-type or OLAP-typetechnologies.

Further regarding ETL processing 2060, we generally depict, in thespecification of the present invention, said ETL processing astransforming relevance results (such as may be stored in 2045) into atabular structure (such as may be stored in a relevance cube 2070);procedure Build_Relevance_Table( ) (Ref. FIG. 38) is such an example. Inthe specification of the present invention, we have deliberately electedto disclose such ETL processing 2060 via tabular transformations, forclarity of presentation. Those skilled in the art will recognize that abroad range of representations (such as tabular, de-normalized tabular,relational, hierarchical, matrix, or similar organizations) may be usedto represent both non-multi-dimensional and multi-dimensional data, suchas may be represented in a relevance cube 2070. Those skilled in the artwill also recognize that the transformations and processing that wedisclose, such as for direct match processing 2040, ETL processing 2060,capability determination processing 2080, RFP relevance determinationprocessing 2080, team construction processing 2090, or template basedmatch processing 11060 may be performed using analogous transformationsor processing in an alternative embodiment, and that such embodimentsare intended to be within the scope of the present invention.

Having disclosed a processing module as shown in FIG. 20, we disclosenext a structure for ST, PD, and RFP data during OLTP-type processingsteps (Ref. 2020, 2021, and 2022; and 2040, respectively), as well asfurther detail regarding these processing steps. This is followed by adisclosure of OLAP-type structures that may be used in subsequentprocessing (Ref. 2070, 2080, 2085, and 2090), as well as further detailregarding these subsequent processing steps.

Data Organization

FIG. 21 generally depicts a Project Descriptor data organization, inaccordance with an exemplary embodiment of the invention, disclosingdetail regarding a concept of a “project”, which may correspond to a PD2011 or RFP 2012 instance, such as stored in a PD data store 2031 or anRFP data store 2032, respectively, in a relevance management system1140. Because of the similarity between an ST (stored in an ST datastore 2030) and a PD or an RFP instance, we also may model an ST as aproject.

Further regarding FIG. 21, we disclose in reference to said figure aProject Descriptor data organization that may provide an efficient andflexible structure to represent ST, PD, and RFP instances, such aswithin a relevance management system 1140. A Project Descriptor dataorganization (Ref. FIG. 21) discloses multiple types of information,which may include, but are not limited to: (1) meta data about a ProjectDescriptor 2101; and (2) at least one sub-descriptor that may be used toefficiently classify and describe a project, such as represented by aProject Descriptor 2102. A component of a Project Descriptor (such asillustrated in FIG. 21) may be associated with a “Level”. A ProjectDescriptor component 2102 may be identified as being at “Level 3”, andsaid Project Descriptor may have a unique identifier (e.g., each PD mayhave a “PD ID”, each RFP an “RPF ID, and each ST an “ST ID”). Asub-descriptor may be identified as being at “Level 4” within arelevance management system 1140, as we disclose in reference to FIG.21.

Regarding Project Descriptor meta data 2101, said meta data may be usedby a relevance management system 1140 to represent hierarchical or othertypes of relationships, such as may exist between a Project Descriptorinstance and its owner, for example that a particular PD is owned by aspecific company, or which RFPs are owned by which companies, and so on.Such “PD Owner” and “RFP Owner” relationships may be identified as“Level 2” within a relevance management system 1140. Finally, meta datamay support a concept of a “team”, such as to represent multiplecompanies whose capabilities and experience may be aggregated, as e.g. agroup of companies who may collectively bid on an RFP (under the lead ofa prime contractor). These team-based relationships may be identified as“Level 1” within a relevance management system 1140, as we disclose inreference to 2101.

Regarding organization of data 2103, and disclosed in further detailbelow, we broadly disclose a data organization that may model multiplelevels (such as, Level 1 through Level 4), and further disclose thatsuch levels may include both hierarchical and non-hierarchicaldescriptors (to include, for example, range-based). Hierarchical andrange-based descriptors may enable efficient determination of relevance,including partial relevance, via overlap. While hierarchical andrange-based descriptors are not required by a relevance managementsystem 1140, an embodiment of the present invention may use themadvantageously. For example, we disclose that hierarchical andrange-based descriptors may enable PD and RFP information to be conveyedby PD and RFP owners, respectively, with a level of confidentiality,using e.g. ranges or less-specific values instead of exact values, asdisclosed in further detail below.

FIG. 22 generally depicts the relationship between hierarchicalaggregation, filtering, and ranking, in accordance with an exemplaryembodiment of the invention, disclosing further how the dataorganization we have disclosed in reference to FIG. 21 may have beenstructured to facilitate core functionality in a relevance managementsystem 1140, to include, but not limited to, hierarchical aggregation2201, filtering 2202, and ranking 2203. We disclose that hierarchicalorganization of data 2103 facilitates functionality such as hierarchicalaggregation; for example, we may “roll up” by work elements within aproject, and then roll up projects by owner (i.e., by company), andfinally roll up capabilities of companies as a team. Using a dataorganization such as depicted in FIG. 21, we may also roll up bycontract type, security classification, and so on. We also disclose inreference to FIG. 22 that, complementary to such roll-up functionality2201, we may also use the data organization to “filter” 2202—forexample, we may restrict the results (which may subsequently be rolledup) to only include projects that contain specific work elements, are ofa specific contract type, or have a specific security classification,and so on. And also complementary to such roll-ups 2201 and filtering2202, we may “rank” 2203 results—for example, projects that better matchindicated criteria, projects whose contract type is similar (but not theexact same), or which involve a similar security classification to acriteria, may be ranked higher than others, for example in results thatmay be presented to an end user (such as a first 1110 or second 1130user), in a relevance management system 1140.

Further regarding FIG. 22, we disclose in reference to said figure arepresentation of core functionality as a Venn diagram, to emphasizethat the data organization may support the three functional elements(hierarchical aggregation 2201, filtering 2202, or ranking 2203). Forexample, such a data organization (as illustrated in FIG. 21) enablesconstruction of a relevance management system 1140 embodiment in whichit is possible to perform all three functional elements (hierarchicalaggregation 2201, filtering 2202, and ranking 2203) for each of theexemplar elements of said data organization (i.e., Team, Project Owner,Project, Period of Performance, Value, Customer, Work, and so on throughRelevant Achievement). However, in a preferred embodiment it may beadvantageous to partition, or selectively use, these functional elementsacross elements of said data organization, to simplify use of arelevance management system 1140 by an end user, or for other reasons.For example, to identify and compare experience and capabilities ofmultiple projects and project owners (potential teammates), it may benatural to (hierarchically) aggregate by work elements, project, projectowner, and team. It may be similarly natural to filter and rank suchresults by criteria such as period of performance, value, customer, workelements, contract type, and so on through relevant achievements.

For clarity of presentation throughout the specification of the presentinvention, we disclose in detail the hierarchical aggregation by theexemplars work element, project, project owner, and team 2102; as wellas filtering and ranking on the exemplars period of performance, value,customer, work elements, contract type, and so on through relevantachievements 2102. Those skilled in the art will recognize that thespecification of the present invention may be used to construct a broadrange of alternative embodiments, such as by applying the functionalelements shown in FIG. 22 to data elements (or, a subset of dataelements, or a superset of data elements) such as the exemplars shown inFIG. 21, for example providing hierarchical aggregation by contracttype, and that such embodiments are intended to be within the scope ofthe present invention.

Further regarding Level 3 and Level 3 data organization, such as wedisclose in reference to FIG. 21, a Project Descriptor (Level 3) mayinclude multiple contracting-domain specific sub-descriptors (Level 4)to efficiently classify and describe contractual work; thesesub-descriptors may fall into zero or more classes, and in an embodimentmay fall into two exemplar classes, which we may denote as primary andsecondary, and which may generally correspond to their relativeimportance when considering RFP-to-PD relevance. A primary class maycontain one or more sub-descriptors, such as those sub-descriptordisclosed above or other sub-descriptors, and in an embodiment mayinclude four exemplary sub-descriptors, such as: project “period ofperformance” (PoP), dollar (or other currency) “value”, “customer” forwhom the work was (or will be) performed, and “work” associated with theproject. A secondary class may contain zero or more sub-descriptors,such as those sub-descriptor disclosed above or other sub-descriptors,and in an embodiment may include five further exemplary sub-descriptors,such as: “contract type”, “security classification”, “line of business”,“special business classification”, and “relevant achievements”.

While the specification for the present invention discloses nineexemplary sub-descriptors, partitioned into two exemplary classes ofsub-descriptors, we contemplate a broad range of sub-descriptors andclasses; those skilled in the art will recognize that additional (orfewer) classes and sub-descriptors may be used in alternativeembodiments, and that the resulting embodiments are intended to bewithin the scope of the present invention.

Further regarding FIG. 21, we first disclose below four primaryexemplary sub-descriptors (Level 4 in FIG. 21), in turn.

Period of Performance (PoP): Represents the project's period ofperformance (PoP). For a PD, PoP may represent a time period between astart date and an end date of work performed. For an RFP, a PPI 422 mayinclude restrictions on the dates of projects that may be submitted in aPast Performance volume. For example, it is often the case that PPI willstipulate that a project included in a Past Performance volume musteither be currently active, or have been completed within a specifiednumber of years (i.e., a project must be current or recent, for example,not more than three years old). In such case, for example, a PoP for anRFP may be used to represent a valid date range for projects that may besubmitted as part of a Past Performance Volume.

Value: Represents a dollar value of a project; for example, whether aproject represented about $1M, $10M, or $100M of work. We note thatcontractors are often reluctant to disclose publicly an actual, specificdollar value for a project; in part to alleviate such an issue, a valuedescriptor may enable a project dollar value to be represented as arange; as an example, a projects whose actual value was $600 k may berepresented as being a range, such as $500 k to $1M. Using a rangeallows a contractor to more confidentially convey a project dollarvalue, without giving away confidential or proprietary information suchas might occur using an exact value, which might enable a viewer of saidPD to estimate that PD owner's overhead or so-called “wrap rate”, whichsaid PD owner may consider confidential information. To alleviate this,a PD owner may represent project contract value as a range. (We disclosethat an exact value may be specified, for example, such as by settingupper and lower range bounds to the same value, or other methods.)

Customer: Represents a customer for a project, i.e., an entity (or,entities) for whom said project work was, or will be, performed. Forexample, we may classify at a high level a customer as being a“government” customer (who may, for example, be procuring supportservices), or a “commercial” customer (such as a bank that may also beprocuring similar or different support services). These high-levelclassifications (e.g., “government” and “commercial”) may includemultiple further sub-classifications, to more specifically identify acustomer. For example, for a government sub-classification, we disclosethat the U.S. Government Office of Management and Budget (OMB) providesa hierarchical classification scheme to identify government programowners for use in the OMB's yearly budgeting process. Suchclassification of U.S. government organizations is well known and may beused to classify U.S. Government customers by Department (e.g., theDepartment of Agriculture), and then Agency within (e.g., the FarmService Agency), and so on.

Work: Represents technical and management work that may have been (or,may be) performed for a project. As with a Customer sub-descriptor, wemay also use a hierarchical classification scheme to classify aproject's work and its constituent work elements. There are multipleexamples of hierarchical classification schemes, including but notlimited to that used by the U.S. Government OMB to classify the type ofwork performed within a government program, as well as NAICS codes thatalso classify work items. A SOW 421 that is used to describe workrequirements in an RFP 420 is often organized hierarchically. Similarly,a work description in a PD document 410 is typically written as a seriesof short sentences or paragraphs, where each paragraph describes aparticular functional area of work that was performed (e.g., a paragraphon Program Management, a paragraph on Technical Work Element 1, and soon). Such sequences of paragraphs may be easily represented as ahierarchy within a relevance management system 1140, with each saidparagraph having the same level within a hierarchical structure. In analternative embodiment, a relevance management system 1140 may alsosupport non-hierarchical work descriptors, which may be accomplished bya variety of methods, including, but not limited to, representing workelements in a PD as members of a list, map, set (such as we disclose inreference to FIG. 121A and FIG. 121B), or other suitable data structure.Those skilled in the art will recognize that such embodiments areintended to be within the scope of the present invention.

Further regarding FIG. 21, we next disclose secondary exemplarysub-descriptors (Level 4 in FIG. 21), in turn.

Contract Type: Represents a type of contract under which work was (or,will be) performed. U.S. Government contracts are often structured inaccordance with the Federal Acquisition Register (FAR), which organizescontract types hierarchically, and has five first-level classifications:

-   -   Fixed Price Contracts    -   Cost Reimbursement Contracts    -   Incentive Contracts    -   Indefinite Delivery Contracts    -   Time-and-Materials, Labor-Hour, and Letter Contracts

Under each of these contract types, the FAR specifies additionalmore-specific classifications. For example, under Fixed Price Contracts,the FAR specifies six more-specific contract types including“Firm-Fixed-Price Contracts”, “Fixed-Price Contracts with Economic PriceAdjustment”, and four others; and similarly for the other first-levelclassifications. A relevance management system 1140 may use, or include,but is not limited to, a contract type descriptor that may be based on aFAR contract-type organization, or other suitable type of organization.

Security Classification: Represents the highest level of security thatwas used (or, will be used) during implementation of a project. Here tooa hierarchical organization (which may represent specialization) may beused to describe such security classifications. Such securityclassification may begin, for example, at a top-most level with aclassification of “None” (meaning no security classification), followedby “For Official Use Only (FOUO)” as a specialization beneath None,“Secret” as a specialization of FOUO, “Top Secret” as a specializationof Secret, and so on. There are a broad range of securityclassifications, including across various branches of government andwithin private industry, which may enable alternative embodiments; thoseskilled in the art will recognize that such embodiments are intended tobe within the scope of the present invention.

Line of Business (LOB): Line of business is intended to represent thegeneral nature of work performed. LOB may be similar to, but is notlimited to, a classification scheme such as based on the U.S. FederalEnterprise Architecture (FEA) Business Reference Model (BRM) 2.0, whichincludes 39 entries that describe in functional terms the purpose aswell as support functions a customer may conduct. As described in theBRM 2.0, each LOB includes a collection of sub-functions that providegreater specificity. For example, within a “Health” LOB, we findspecializations (where the “4” symbol represents specialization within abroader classification) for “Health Illness Prevention”, “HealthImmunization Management”, “Health Public Sector Monitoring”, and so on.A relevance management system 1140 may use, or selectively use,including with modification, such LOB classifications to describe abusiness area that technical work supports, which may be helpful indetermining relevance of a PD to an RFP. For example, if we have an RFPrequirement for e.g. updating of weapons-system software, and haveavailable a PD whose customer (as described above) is a branch of theU.S. military, and whose work (as described above) involved a contractorperforming software maintenance, we may believe we have a good match forsaid RFP requirement, until we determine that the LOB for said PD was“Financial Management→Accounting”, which is likely of less relevancethan if the LOB had been e.g. “Defense and National Security”, as may bethe case with a second PD, which may indeed be a more relevant exampleof software maintenance, in this case.

Special Business (SB) Classification: Represents types of businessesthat may be identified as being within a special classification, such aspertaining to government contracting. As described in FAR Part 19,“Small Business Programs”, there are a number of special businessclassifications that are often given preferential treatment duringproposal evaluation. For example, an RFP may include a requirement thata percentage of work on a contract (to be awarded to a prime contractor)must be performed by subcontractors (to said prime contractor) that havea specific classification; for example, that “23% of the total contractwork must be performed by Small Business Administration (SBA) certified8(a) companies”. Representative SB classifications that a relevancemanagement system 1140 may use to classify a project may include, butare not limited to:

-   -   Small Business    -   SBA 8(a)    -   Woman Owned    -   Veteran Owned    -   Historically Underutilized Business Zones (HUBZone)

Relevant Achievement: A relevant achievement represents an instance oftangible (such as, verifiable) evidence that a project was performedsatisfactorily, and may be used to identify projects that providedexcellent service or achieved noteworthy results. A relevant achievementmay be represented by, but is not limited to, customer testimonials(quotes from a customer for a prior project), or a quantified benefitachieved on a project, such as reduced cost, increased quality,increased capability, or reduced schedule. It may be important that arelevant achievement be verifiable, and represent stronger evidence thane.g. a contractor simply stating (without verifiable proof), “Thecustomer really loved us on this project.” If a statement of that sortis indeed true, a contractor should be able to provide a quote from saidcustomer indicating such, or provide evidence (such cost savings, whichmay be documented) from which it would be clear that said customerindeed viewed a contractor favorably.

We disclose that all of the exemplary primary and secondarysub-descriptors (with the exception of PoP and Value) may be easilyrepresented hierarchically, as disclosed above, and that the PoP andValue sub-descriptors are both easily represented as ranges of values(each using a pair of dates and dollar values, respectively).

Secondary sub-descriptors may be enabled analogously to primarysub-descriptors. Because secondary sub-descriptors may be representedhierarchically (analogously, for example, to the primary sub-descriptorfor customer), in the specification of embodiments of the presentinvention that follows we focus on the primary sub-descriptors, whichinclude hierarchical sub-descriptors (e.g., customer and work), with theunderstanding and intention that those skilled in the art will be ableto use the specification of the present invention that we provide forprimary sub-descriptors, to fully enable secondary sub-descriptors.

Relationship Between STs, PDs, and RFPs

We disclose below an important relationship, between a standard template(ST) and the creation of a PD or RFP instance, such as during a dataentry process (Ref. 2021 and 2022, respectively). Broadly speaking, anST may be used to simplify a PD or RFP data-entry process, whilesimultaneously enabling entry by an end user of e.g. the unmodified textof a PD or RFP work-element description, respectively, which a relevancemanagement system 1140 may use to perform the more difficult task ofmatching, to determine RFP-to-PD relevance on an element-by-elementbasis.

As we have disclosed above, a Project Descriptor (which may be used torepresent an ST, PD, or RFP within a relevance management system 1140 asLevel 3) may be comprised of multiple sub-descriptors (Level 4).

Recall that a user, such as an administrative user 1120, may constructan ST, including using input from the contracting domain 1121, which maybe separate from the PDs 1111 and RFPs 1131. Instead of PD or RFPdocument inputs, a user may use inputs such as the FAR and FEA BRM(described above) to construct an ST, so said ST data may be usedsubsequently during PD and RFP data entry to create a series of“templates” for sub-descriptors (which may be hierarchical). Asdisclosed above, a customer sub-descriptor may consist of a hierarchicalclassification of customers, from most general (e.g., government orcommercial) to most specific (e.g., government Departments, and Agencieswithin, when following the government branch). Thus, in constructing anST, a user may enter (possibly once) into a relevance management system1140 an overall hierarchy or taxonomy that an end user may usesubsequently to describe a customer when said end user enters a PD or anRFP. As we disclose below, such hierarchy may be displayed to a said enduser (such as, a series of populated, drop-down menus) when said enduser enters a PD or RFP into a relevance management system 1140,allowing said end user to select from available entries (which a user,such as an administrative user, enabled when creating an ST).

We disclose that such functionality, including ST-driven,selection-based data entry for PDs and RFPs, may be used for PD and RFPsub-descriptors; however in a preferred embodiment we may choose totreat the work descriptor differently, and instead may enable an enduser to enter directly into a relevance management system 1140, forexample as unmodified PD or RFP text, data that describes acorresponding PD or RFP work element (for example, such as we disclosein reference to a section component 2424 and a section component 2425).There are several important motivations for the type of data entry wedisclose.

First, as we disclose below, via this process, data entry for a PD orRFP has been made a simple, clerical task, and does involve the skill ofe.g. a subject matter expert (SME) to perform. A PD or RFP data entrytask has been simplified for an end user through the use of selections,such as via drop-down menus (e.g., a data entry component 2640, said“drop-down” menu selection which may be indicated by the presence of anexemplar “▾” symbol) for all of the sub-descriptors (except for work,which may be simplified differently, as disclosed below). The contentsof a selector, such as a drop-down menu (i.e., a hierarchical selectionof values), may be populated by data from an ST (e.g., as illustrated inan exemplar in FIG. 27), from which an end user may simply select anappropriate entry (e.g., a selector 2641). Thus, with a PD documentin-hand, it may be a simple matter for a data-entry clerk to enterperiod of performance dates (project start and end dates) as noted onsaid PD document, project dollar value range (low and high dollarvalue), and navigate through selections (such as via drop-down menus)that a relevance management system 1140 may present, to select acustomer for whom work was performed, as indicated on said PD document.

In contrast, classification of the type of work performed on a PD (or,work requirements for an RFP) is a more difficult task, and one that maynot be easily performed by a data-entry clerk, who is assumed to haveless knowledge than a subject matter expert. Indeed, it is the automatic“classification” of work performed (using, e.g. document/contentsimilarity matching techniques, or other techniques) with respect to anRFP that is one of the key features of embodiments of the presentinvention. Thus, instead of forcing such a difficult task onto e.g. aless-qualified data-entry clerk, the task of an end user, who may bedata-entry clerk, may be greatly simplified by merely requiring an enduser to enter a description for a project work element (or, for an RFP,a project work requirement) into a relevance management system 1140 bycopying said description from a PD (or, RFP) document into a data-entryform, verbatim, or with minimal modification. Indeed, this is one reasonthat the PD 2021 and ST 2022 data entry processes are termed “dataentry” processes, as they involve only simple data entry tasks, and notthe far more complex process of classification or matching (as may beperformed by a relevance management system 1140 automatically via directmatch processing 2040).

A note regarding the specification of the present invention, and theordering of disclosures within, which has been done to clarifypresentation of the specification. We disclose that an ST may be usedfor different, but related, purposes with respect to direct matchprocessing 2040, which we disclose first, and template-based matchprocessing 11060, which we disclose below. More specifically, we firstdisclose the use of an ST in a relevance management system 1140 fordetermining RFP-to-PD relevance (such as we disclose above in referenceto in FIG. 20, and further in reference to e.g. FIG. 35) that usesdirect match processing 2040, in which a relevance management system1140 may use e.g. document similarity matching techniques, now known orhereafter developed, whose inputs are the unmodified RFP-element andPD-element text that were input during data-entry above. We disclose asecond use of an ST when we disclose below, in reference to FIG. 110through FIG. 113, that direct match processing 2040 may be augmented byresults from template-based match processing 11060, which may use asinput the results of PD 11041 and RFP 11042 template pre-processing thatalso uses an ST, and which may leverage the knowledge of subject matterexperts (SME) who may use their expertise to match, or confirm thematches of, work elements in a PD or RFP with those of an ST, which arelevance management system 1140 may then process 11060 to estimateRFP-to-PD relevance, based on matches derived through an ST.

To clarify concepts of a Project Descriptor, it is useful to discloseexemplar Project Descriptors for an ST, a PD, and an RFP, which we dobelow, using as a basis the example previously presented in FIG. 5through FIG. 10.

We disclose in reference to FIG. 23, FIG. 25, and FIG. 30 exemplarProject Descriptors for an ST, PD, and RFP, respectively, which arelevance management system 1140 may use to represent primary andsecondary descriptors that comprise said Project Descriptors. Forexample, elements that comprise a customer descriptor may be representedas nodes in a hierarchical, tree-like structure, or other type of datastructure, such as a set as we disclose in reference to FIG. 121A andFIG. 121B below; and said nodes may include information that identifiessaid node. Identifying information for each such node or element in adescriptor may include, but is not limited to, a label or a description.A label may generally be, but is not limited to, a short piece ofdescriptive text. Similarly, a description may generally be, but is notlimited to, a piece of descriptive text that may be longer than a label,and may be comprised of one or more sentences or paragraphs. Forexample, a node in a customer descriptor that is intended to identify orrepresent the United States Department of Agriculture may have as itslabel “USDA” 2424, and as its description a longer entry that mayprovide further detail, definition, or description, such as adescription based on information from Wikipedia, such as, “The U.S.Department of Agriculture (USDA) is responsible for developing andexecuting federal government policy on farming, agriculture, forestry,and food. It aims to . . . ” (as we disclose in reference to a dataentry component 2425) for the exemplar USDA. In the specification of thepresent invention we may characterize ST, PD, or RFP nodes or elementsas having identifiers such as a label or a description, however wecontemplate a broad range of alternative embodiments whose saididentifiers may include a label or a description, as well as additionalitems, which may include, but are not limited to, numeric or otheridentifiers (which may facilitate implementation), hyperlinks to otherinternal or external information (such as a link to a USDA website, or aWikipedia entry, for the example above), or visual icons (which may beused to facilitate interaction with an end user), and that suchembodiments are intended to be within the scope of the presentinvention.

ST Project Descriptor Exemplar and Data Entry Interface

FIG. 23 generally depicts an ST exemplar, in accordance with anexemplary embodiment of the invention, represented using a ProjectDescriptor structure 2102. An ST 2310 may be comprised ofsub-descriptors, such as primary sub-descriptors, such as exemplars PoP2312, value 2313, customer 2314, and work 2315. Because the relationshipof said sub-descriptors (Ref. 2312 through 2315) to a project descriptor2311 is clear, we refer to said sub-descriptors simply as “descriptors”in the specification below, for clarity of presentation.

For a processing module such as we disclose in reference to FIG. 20, andspecifically the direct match processing step 2040, ST descriptors forPoP 2312, value 2313, and work 2315 may not be used by a relevancemanagement system 1140, and are thus left blank as shown in FIG. 23(i.e., the descriptors have no sub-elements, in contrast to a customerdescriptor 2314). We disclose, however, that an ST descriptor for workmay in fact be used by a relevance management system 1140, such as partof template processing, which we disclose below in reference to FIG. 110and FIG. 111. Thus, for direct match processing 2040, which is the focusof the processing flow depicted in FIG. 20, a customer descriptor for anST 2313 is of primary importance. We disclose next how a user, such asan administrative user, may create such an ST customer descriptor 2313.

FIG. 24 generally depicts an ST data entry interface, in accordance withan exemplary embodiment of the invention, in which a controller module1142 and an interface module 1143 may provide the necessary interfacesand application logic for an ST data entry processes. We disclose inreference to FIG. 24 how an end user may be presented with functionalitysuch as an interface 2400 that may present a view of an ST ProjectDescriptor 2310 that is in the process of being constructed, reviewed,or updated, such as by an administrative user.

We further disclose, in reference to an ST data entry interface 2400,that said interface may be comprised of sections, such as a meta-datasection 2410, or an ST Project Descriptor section 2420, and that eachsuch section can be considered its own interface, as can each fieldwithin a section.

Functionality provided by a meta-data section 2410 may includepresenting information regarding an owner of a template 2411, which isillustrated as an exemplar “Admin” administrative user in this case, aswell as a system-generated unique identifier for a template 2412, whichis illustrated as an exemplar “ST001” in this case. A meta-data sectionmay enable a user to provide a name for a template as well 2413.

Functionality provided by an ST Project Descriptor section 2420 mayenable a user to update a customer descriptor section 2421, as well as awork descriptor section 2422, as we disclose in reference to FIG. 112. Auser may be provided functionality to add 2430 or delete 2431 elementsin a Project Descriptor section 2420, as well as rearrange or replicateelements or subtrees within a Project Descriptor section 2420. A ProjectDescriptor section 2420 may enable an end user to select elements, as wedisclose by illustrating the selection of an element labeled USDA 2423,whose circle is shown as darkened, although we contemplate a broad rangeof alternative selection indicators, such as highlighting or otheridioms, now known or hereafter developed, that may be used inalternative embodiments. A user may be provided functionality to enterdata for a selected element label field 2424 as well as an elementdescription field 2425. As we disclose in reference to FIG. 27, customerdescriptor labels (such as Federal, Government, DOD, and so on, in theexample) may be used to generate selection-based data-entry elements,which may include but are not limited to drop-down menus or alternativeselectors, during a PD or RFP data entry process. A user may instruct arelevance management system 1140 to save 2440 to an internal ST datastore 2030 changes made to a Project Descriptor, or to reject thesechanges by canceling 2441.

Further regarding an ST data entry interface 2400, in an ST data entryprocess 2021, a user 1120 may use input from the contracting domain (Ref2011 and 1121) to create an ST instance 2310, which may be stored in anST data store 2031. In the ST exemplar we disclose in reference to FIG.23 and the ST data entry interface FIG. 24, we see that a customer maybe classified as being of type “government” or “commercial”. We can seethat under a government classification in this example, a customer maybe of type “federal”; in a more expansive example of an ST instancethese sub-classifications might include “federal”, “state”, “local”,“tribal”, or other classifications, corresponding to a morecomprehensive breakdown of types of government organizations; andsimilarly for other subclassifications. Beneath federal in this example,we see further classifications for the Department of Defense (DoD), andother departments such as the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), theDepartment of Energy (DOE), and the State Department (STATE). UnderUSDA, we see three further classifications for agencies within USDA,namely the Farm Service Agency (FSA), the Risk Management Agency (RMA),and the Forest Service (FS).

PD Project Descriptor Exemplar and Data Entry Interface

FIG. 25 generally depicts a PD exemplar, in accordance with an exemplaryembodiment of the invention, represented using a Project Descriptorstructure 2102. A PD 2510 may be comprised of sub-descriptors, such asprimary sub-descriptors, such as exemplars PoP 2512, value 2513,customer 2514, and work 2515. Because the relationship of saidsub-descriptors (Ref. 2612 through 2615) to a project descriptor 2611 isclear, we refer to said sub-descriptors simply as “descriptors” in thespecification below, for clarity of presentation.

FIG. 26 generally depicts a PD data entry interface, in accordance withan exemplary embodiment of the invention, in which a controller module1142 and an interface module 1143 may provide the necessary interfacesand application logic (as we disclose in reference to FIG. 26 throughFIG. 29) to represent and save PD data in a relevance management system1140. The functionality provided by data-entry interfaces that wedisclose in reference to FIG. 26 through FIG. 29 may be used for both PDand RFP data entry processes; thus we may refer to the functionalitythat 2600 provides as a “PD-RFP” data entry interface when speaking ofit generally, as a “PD” data entry interface when disclosing its useentering PDs, or as an “RFP” data entry interface when disclosing itsuse entering RFPs.

We further disclose, in reference to a PD data entry interface 2600,that said interface may be comprised of sections, such as a meta-datasection 2610, a project information section 2615, or a PD ProjectDescriptor section 2650, and that each such section can be consideredits own interface, as can each field within a section.

In a PD data entry process 2021, a capability-providing end user 1110may use functionality, such as provided by a PD data entry section shownin FIG. 26, and information that an end user may have on hand, which maybe a PD document (Ref 2011 and 1111), to create a PD instance 2510,which may be stored in a PD data store 2031.

Further regarding a PD data entry interface 2600, an end user may usefunctionality such as provided by said interface to create a PD ProjectDescriptor 2510, as follows. When a relevance management system 1140presents a PD data entry interface 2600 to an end user, several piecesof information in a meta data section 2610 may have already been filledout by a relevance management system 1140; these may include a projectowner 2611, or a project identifier 2612, which may have been assigned aunique identifier generated by a relevance management system 1140 (suchas an exemplar “PD001”, in this example). An end user may provide a namefor a PD 2613; here an end user is shown as having provided a name“Project Description 1”, as an exemplar.

Regarding a project information section 2615, an end user may beprovided functionality to fill out information in said section 2615,which may consists of various data-entry fields and mechanisms, such asto specify ranges and selections, and which may be made via drop-downmenus, or similar idioms. Functionality such as a PoP date range field2620 may be used to enter a start date and end date for a project, whichmay be stored in a PoP descriptor 2512. Similarly, functionality such asa value range field 2630 may be used to enter a lower and upper boundfor a contract value of a project, which may then be stored in a valuedescriptor 2513.

Regarding a customer field 2640, an end user may use functionality suchas said customer field 2640 to specify a customer for a project, whichmay be stored in a customer descriptor 2514. Functionality such as acustomer field 2640 may contain a selector, such as a drop-down menu2641, whose hierarchical, multi-level fields may be populated by thecontents of a previously entered ST customer descriptor 2314, which maybe presented to an end user as a series of selections, as shown in FIG.27.

FIG. 27 generally depicts a PD data entry selection, using customer asan exemplar, in accordance with an exemplary embodiment of theinvention, in which an end user may navigate a menu hierarchy (such asvia successive drop-down selections, in an exemplar) to select initiallyunder “N/A” 2711 (for “Not Available”); the selection “Government” 2712from a choice of “Government” or “Commercial”; followed by “Federal” and“USDA”; and finally “FSA” 2713. A relevance management system 1140 mayalso provide functionality to specify multiple entries for a customerdescriptor, as we disclose by functionality such as represented by a“Multiple . . . ” button 2642, which we disclose in further detail inreference to FIG. 80 and FIG. 81. In practice, for many PDs, a customerdescriptor will likely only specify a single customer (i.e., thefunctionality such as represented by “Multiple . . . ” 2642 may not needto be exercised).

Regarding further functionality that may be available from a projectinformation section 2615, an end user may be presented functionality2643 to enter additional information, such as secondary-levelsub-descriptors, as previously discussed. When an end user invokesfunctionality such as represented by “Additional Detail . . . ” 2643,they may be presented with functionality such as an additional contractdetail interface FIG. 28.

FIG. 28 generally depicts an additional contract detail interface, inaccordance with an exemplary embodiment of the invention, which wedisclose may be comprised of sections, such as an additional contractdetail section 2820, a special business classification section 2830, ora relevant achievements section 2840; and that each such section can beconsidered its own interface, as can each field within a section.

Regarding an additional contract detail section 2820, we disclose thatan end user may enter an exemplar contract type 2821, securityclassification 2822, or line of business 2823 for a project, such asusing a selection-type input, including but not limited to a drop-downmenu or alternatives selector, whose functionality may be analogous tothat for a customer field (Ref 2640, and FIG. 27) as previouslydiscussed, and which may include functionality for multiple entries 2824under each.

Regarding a special business classification section 2830, and a relevantachievements section 2840, an end user may also be providedfunctionality such as the ability to specify one or more specialbusiness classifications 2831 for a PD, as well as add one or morerelevant achievements 2830, respectively. When functionality to add arelevant achievement 2830 is activated, an end user may be presentedwith functionality such as a relevant achievements interface (such as aninterface we disclose in reference to FIG. 29).

FIG. 29 generally depicts a relevant achievements interface, inaccordance with an exemplary embodiment of the invention. For eachrelevant achievement entered, an end user may be provided functionalitysuch as the ability to specify whether said achievement represents acustomer testimonial or a quantified benefit 2921, or other suchidentifier. If an end user specifies a quantified benefit, said user mayfurther be able to specify its type 2922, which may include selections,such as for reduced cost, increased quality, increased capability, orreduced schedule, or other identifiers. If an end user has selectedeither customer testimonial or quantified benefits 2921, said user mayenter an accompanying description 2923. An end user may be providedfunctionality to save a relevant achievement 2932 or cancel theoperation 2931. Furthermore, when an end user has returned to anadditional contract detail interface 2810 or has completed data entry,they may be provided functionality to save information 2852 or cancelthe operation 2852, and in either case a relevance management system1140 may return an end user to a PD data entry interface 2600.

Regarding a PD Project Descriptor section 2650, we disclose that arelevance management system 1140 may provide functionality for an enduser to enter work descriptor information. A work descriptor 2515 for aPD may be used to represent the type of technical or management workthat was performed for a project. In FIG. 25 we can see that an examplePD includes two work elements under a work descriptor 2515, namelyproject management and software development. We see that a softwaredevelopment work element has been further specified by representing itsconstituent components as a Requirements Phase, a Design Phase, and aTesting Phase.

As part of PD data entry an end user may enter a description of workelements performed as part of a project. A process for entering workdescriptor 2515 elements of a PD Project Descriptor 2510 may usefunctionality analogous to that used for entering a customer descriptor2314 for an ST Project Descriptor 2310, as we have disclosed previouslyin reference to FIG. 23 and FIG. 24, and disclose below for a workdescriptor.

Further regarding a PD Project Descriptor section 2650, we disclose thatsaid section may present a PD work descriptor 2651 to an end user, suchas for review or updating. We further disclose that said section 2650may provide functionality for an end user to add 2655 or delete 2656elements in a work descriptor section 2651, as well as rearrange orreplicate elements or subtrees within work descriptor section 2651.Functionality such as a work descriptor section 2651 may enable an enduser to select elements, as shown by a selection of an element for“Construction Phase” 2652, whose circle may be shown as darkened; wecontemplate alternative ways to indicate selection, such as we havedisclosed above in reference to a selection 2423. A PD ProjectDescriptor section 2650 may provide functionality that enables an enduser to update a currently selected element 2652, such as by editing anelement label field 2653 or an element description field 2654. As shown,such fields (Ref. 2653 and 2654) may provide functionality where an enduser may enter data into a relevance management system 1140, includingunmodified text from a PD-element work description taken from a PDdocument, or other descriptive text; this may be advantageouslyperformed by using simple copy-and-paste type operations, to copydescriptive text directly from a PD document into an element label field2653 or description field 2654 input area.

At the completion of PD data entry, a PD data entry interface 2600 mayprovide functionality for an end user to instruct a relevance managementsystem 1140 to save 2660, such as to an internal PD data store 2031,changes made to a PD Project Descriptor, or to reject these changes bycanceling 2661.

RFP Project Descriptor Exemplar and Data Entry Interface

FIG. 30 generally depicts an RFP exemplar, in accordance with anexemplary embodiment of the invention, represented using a ProjectDescriptor structure 2102. An RFP 3010 may be comprised ofsub-descriptors, such as primary sub-descriptors, such as exemplars PoP3012, value 3013, customer 3014, or work 3015. Because the relationshipof said sub-descriptors (Ref. 3112 through 3115) to a project descriptor3111 is clear, we refer to said sub-descriptors simply as “descriptors”in the specification below, for clarity of presentation.

FIG. 31 generally depicts an RFP data entry interface, in accordancewith an exemplary embodiment of the invention, in which a controllermodule 1142 and an interface module 1143, such as we disclose inreference to FIG. 11, may generate or manage data-entry interfaces andapplication workflow (illustrated in FIG. 31) to represent and save RFPdata in a relevance management system 1140. As noted above, data entryinterfaces, such as we disclose in reference to FIG. 26 through FIG. 29,may provide functionality that may be used for both PD and RFP dataentry processes; thus we disclose in reference to FIG. 31 the use of adata entry interface 3100, analogous to that shown in FIG. 26, but nowused for RFP data entry.

We further disclose, in reference to an RFP data entry interface 3100,that said interface may be comprised of sections, such as a meta-datasection 3110, a project information section 3115, or an RFP ProjectDescriptor section 3150, and that each such section can be consideredits own interface, as can each field within a section.

Further regarding FIG. 31, in an RFP data entry process 2022, acapability-seeking end user 1130 may use functionality such as providedin a data entry interface 3100, and information said end user may haveon hand, which may be an RFP document (Ref 2012 and 1131), to create anRFP instance 3010, which may be stored in an RFP data store 2032.

Further regarding an RFP data entry interface 3100, an end user may usefunctionality such as provided by said interface to create an RFPProject Descriptor 3010, as follows. When a relevance management system1140 presents an RFP data entry interface 3100 to an end user, severalpieces of information in a meta data section 3110 may have already beenfilled out by said system; these may include an RFP owner 3111, or anRFP identifier 3112, which may have been assigned a unique identifiergenerated by said system (such as an exemplar “RFP001”, in thisexample). An end user may provide a name for an RFP 3113; here an enduser is shown as having provided a name “Request for Proposals 1”, as anexample.

Regarding a project information section 3115, an end user may beprovided functionality to fill out information in said section 3115,which may consists of various data-entry fields or mechanisms, such asto specify ranges or selections, and which may be made via drop-downmenus, or similar idioms. Functionality such as a PoP date range field3120 may be used to enter a start date and end date for allowable pastperformance, for example as specified in the PPI 422 or EC 423, whichmay be stored in a PoP descriptor 3012. Similarly, functionality such asa value range field 3130 may be used to enter a lower and upper boundfor a contract value of an RFP, which may then be stored in a valuedescriptor 3013.

Regarding a customer field 3140, an end user may use functionality suchas said customer field 3140 to specify a customer for a project, whichmay be stored in a customer descriptor 3014. Functionality such as acustomer field 3140 may contain a selector, such as a drop-down menu3141, whose hierarchical, multi-level fields may be populated by thecontents of a previously entered ST customer descriptor 2314, which maybe presented to an end user as a series of selections, as shown in FIG.27, as disclosed above. The customer field 3140 shows how an end usermay analogously navigate to, and select, “RMA” 3141, as an example.

Regarding further functionality that may be available from a projectinformation section 3115, an end user may be presented functionality3143 to enter additional information, such as secondary-levelsub-descriptors, as previously discussed. When an end user invokesfunctionality such as represented by “Additional Detail . . . ” 3143,they may be presented with functionality such as an additional contractdetail interface as disclosed above in reference to FIG. 28, to entersecondary-level sub-descriptors for RFP.

Once again said user may be presented with functionality such as anadditional contract detail interface 2810, with which said end user mayenter, a contract type 2821, security classification 2822, or line ofbusiness 2823 as called for in an RFP. An end user may also be able tospecify one or more special business classifications 2831 that may be arequirement (or of benefit, during evaluation) of an RFP. For RFP dataentry, functionality such represented by an “Add relevant achievement”field 2840 may be deactivated, so an end user may not add suchinformation. When an end user has completed their additional contractdetail 2810 data entry, said end user may be provided functionality tosave information 2852 or cancel the operation 2852, and in either case arelevance management system 1140 may returns said end user to an RFPdata entry interface 3100.

Regarding an RFP Project Descriptor section 3150, we disclose that arelevance management system 1140 may provide functionality for an enduser to enter work descriptor information. A work descriptor 3015 for anRFP may be used to identify the type or types of technical andmanagement work requirements for a project. In FIG. 30 we can see anexample RFP that includes two work elements under a work descriptor3015, namely SOW 1—Develop Software, and SOW 2—Manage the Project. Wesee that SOW 1 work element has been further specified by identifyingits constituent components, shown in this example as SOW 1.1—PerformDesign, SOW 1.2—Develop Modules, and SOW 1.3—Perform Testing.

Further regarding an RFP Project Descriptor section 3150, we disclosethat said section may present an RFP work descriptor 3151 to an enduser, such as for review or updating. A process for entering workdescriptor 3015 elements of an RFP Project Descriptor 3010 may beanalogous to that used for entering work descriptor 2515 elements of aPD Project Descriptor 2510, as we have disclosed previously in referenceto FIG. 26 for a PD data entry process. As was the case for PD workdescriptor data entry, functionality such as RFP work descriptor dataentry fields (Ref. 3153 and 3154) may enable an end user to view,create, update, or delete data associated with a selected workdescriptor element 3152. As we disclose in reference to data entryfields (Ref. 3153 and 3154), such fields may provide functionality wherean end user may enter into a relevance management system 1140 unmodifiedtext from an RFP-element work requirement, such as taken from an RFPdocument, or other descriptive text. This may be advantageouslyperformed by using simple copy-and-paste type operations, such as tocopy descriptive text directly from an RFP document into appropriatefields (Ref. 3153 and 3154).

At the completion of RFP data entry, an RFP data entry interface 3100may provide functionality for an end user to instruct a relevancemanagement system 1140 to save 3160, such as to an internal RFP datastore 2032, changes made to an RFP Project Descriptor, or to reject saidchanges by canceling 3161.

We have disclosed, in reference to FIG. 24, FIG. 26, and FIG. 31,interfaces that provide functionality with which an end user may create,store and update ST, PD, and RFP instances in a relevance managementsystem 1140 via corresponding data-entry processes (Ref. 2020, 2021, and2022, respectively). Those skilled in the art will recognize that aresult of these data-entry processes has been to populate an ST, PD, orRFP data store (Ref. 2030, 2031, and 2032, respectively) with an ST, PD,or RFP instance (as exemplified by FIG. 23, FIG. 25, and FIG. 30), andthat it may be possible to populate said ST, PD, or RFP data storesusing alternate embodiments. We contemplate an alternative embodiment inwhich an end user may create such an ST, PD, or RFP instance, such asexternally to a relevance management system 1140, as a file, document,or other such container of information, using for example a text editoror other such tool or process, which may then be imported directly intoa relevance management system 1140 by a corresponding data entry process(Ref. 2021, 2020, and 2022, respectively). Those skilled in the art willrecognize that such type of file-based data entry for an ST, PD, or RFPinstance may be performed using simple file-input functionality, webservices, or other methods or services, such as “cloud” or distributedservices, locally or over an Internet or network, and that suchembodiments are intended to be within the scope of the presentinvention.

We also contemplate an alternative embodiment in which a user, or aproxy, or system operating on behalf of said user, may usefunctionality, such as that provided by parsing technology, now known orhereafter developed, to automatically (or, semi-automatically) constructan ST, PD, or RFP instance (or parts thereof), from inputs such as fromthe contracting domain, a project description, or an RFP document,respectively, or other inputs. For example, such an alternativeembodiment may use parsing techniques to create inputs that may be “readin” or imported into a relevance management system 1140, such as may beperformed by file-based data entry, as disclosed above. Those skilled inthe art will recognize that embodiments that incorporate such parsingtechniques are intended to be within the scope of the present invention.

Relevance Matching

A key step performed by a processing module (such as we disclose inreference to FIG. 20) is determining the relevance of an RFP to a PD,which may be performed via functionality such as direct match processing2040. To assist match processing, it may be advantageous for a relevancemanagement system 1140 to transform a representation of a PD, RFP, orST, exemplars of which we disclose in reference to FIG. 25, FIG. 30, andFIG. 23, respectively, into an array, vector, map, or other datastructure. We disclose that such transformation may be accomplished bynavigating a Project Descriptor, such as a PD, RFP or ST, exemplars ofwhich we disclose in reference to FIG. 25, FIG. 30, and FIG. 23,respectively, using a depth-first traversal, and associating each nodein a Project Descriptor with an element of an array.

We disclose that in a tag-based alternative embodiment, such as wedisclose below in reference to FIG. 121A and FIG. 121B, suchtransformation to an array format may accomplished in a variety of ways,including but not limited to enumerating the tag nodes in the setscomprising a tag-based Project Descriptor embodiment, and associatingeach such tag node with an element of an array.

FIG. 32 generally depicts an exemplar PD Project Descriptor in arrayformat, in accordance with an exemplary embodiment of the invention,which we disclose for performing such a PD Project Descriptor-to-arraytransformation. We disclose such transformation to an array format inreference to FIG. 32 using a PD instance example from FIG. 25, where anarray 3220 has been populated with 14 entries (P0 through P13), each ofwhich corresponds to an element of a PD Project Descriptor. For example,array element P0 3221 corresponds to the root node of a PD ProjectDescriptor 3211; array element P1 3222 corresponds to the PoP descriptor3212; and so on for the remainder of array elements through P13.

FIG. 33 generally depicts an exemplar RFP Project Descriptor in arrayformat, in accordance with an exemplary embodiment of the invention,which we disclose for performing such an RFP Project Descriptor-to-arraytransformation. Similar to FIG. 32, we disclose in reference to FIG. 33a corresponding array representation for an RFP instance shown in FIG.30. Here we disclose that analogously, array element R0 3321 correspondsto the root node of an RFP Project Descriptor 3311; array element R13322 corresponds to the PoP descriptor 3312; and so on for the remainderof array elements through R14.

FIG. 34 generally depicts an exemplar for match processing using a PDProject Descriptor and an RFP Project Descriptor, in accordance with anexemplary embodiment of the invention. We disclose in reference to FIG.34 how a relevance management system 1140 may determine, during directmatch processing 2040, relevance of a PD, such as in array format 3410,to an RFP, such as in array format 3420. In effect, a relevancemanagement system 1140 may pair-up corresponding descriptors from a PDinstance and an RFP instance, e.g., PoP descriptors (Ref. 3411 and 3421,respectively, which correspond to descriptors (Ref. 3212 and 3312),respectively); value descriptors (Ref. 3412 and 3422); customerdescriptors (Ref. 3413 and 3423); and work descriptors (Ref. 3414 and3424). We disclose in further detail below (in reference to FIG. 68through FIG. 71, and FIG. 84 through FIG. 87, for a customer descriptor;and in reference to FIG. 88 through FIG. 89 for a PoP descriptor) howrelevance may be determined and used for a customer descriptor, as wellas a PoP or value (range-type) descriptor. In the specification below,our disclosure focuses on determining relevance of a PD work descriptorand an RFP work descriptor; descriptors (Ref. 3414 and 3424,respectively), which correspond to descriptors (Ref. 3215 and 3315,respectively).

FIG. 35 generally depicts pseudo-code for a procedureDetermine_Relevance_Matrix( ) that we disclose, in accordance with anexemplary embodiment of the invention, that a relevance managementsystem 1140 may use to determine relevance of a PD work descriptor to anRFP work descriptor, both of which may be provided to said procedure asinputs in arrays named A and B, respectively, and which are shown asarrays (Ref 3710 and 3720), respectively. For clarity, we note thatarrays (Ref. 3710 and 3720) correspond to arrays (Ref. 3414 and 3424),respectively, which in turn correspond to descriptors (Ref 3215 and3315), respectively. Procedure Determine_Relevance_Matrix( ) (Ref. FIG.35) takes as input two additional arguments, a function namedContent_Comparator( ) and a numeric value named Min Threshold (whichstands for “minimum threshold”); we disclose the use of said argumentsbelow.

Further regarding input arguments as depicted in FIG. 35,Content_Comparator( ) is an argument that is passed toDetermine_Relevance_Matrix( ) (Ref. FIG. 35) that enables a relevancemanagement system 1140 to use tailorable, interchangeable functionalityin determining similarity of two documents. (In programming languages,such a technique is commonly referred to as a “function argument”.)Content_Comparator( ) is a function that takes as input two inputarguments, and returns a numeric value (that we may disclose as a realnumber value between 0.0 and 1.0, scaled to such range as needed) thatrepresents how “similar” the two arguments it has received are to oneanother. We may use a numeric value having a range between 0.0 and 1.0to represent similarity, which we do for clarity of presentation in thespecification of the present invention. We also contemplate a broadrange of alternative embodiments for similarity metrics, which forexample may use a different range, or step-wise, discrete-valuedentities, which may or may not be numeric, with a simple example of suchbeing a similarity metric that may take on discrete values such as“High”, “Medium”, or “Low”, and so on (as well as in much finergradations). For clarity, we use a similarity metric whose range is 0.0to 1.0 throughout the specification of the present invention; thoseskilled in the art will recognize that alternative similarity metricsmay be used, and that such embodiments are intended to be within thescope of the present invention.

Regarding procedure Determine_Relevance_Matrix( ) that we disclose inreference to FIG. 35, the input argument that is received as aContent_Comparator( ) function may be implemented with any of a broadrange of methods, now known or hereafter developed, for determiningsimilarity of a first document to a second document, examples of whichinclude, but are not limited to, the well-known Term Frequency-InverseDocument Frequency (TF-IDF) methodology, and more sophisticated LatentSemantic Analysis (LSA) techniques, both of which may incorporatefurther techniques, now known or hereafter developed, such as removal ofstop words (i.e., unimportant words), stemming, and other techniques.Such methods and techniques, now known or hereafter developed, alone orin combination, may be configured to perform textual and other analysisof two documents which may be provided as arguments, and to return anumber between 0.0 and 1.0 (scaled to such range, as needed) toindicates how similar a first document is to a second document, with 0.0indicating no similarity, and 1.0 indicating high similarity, and may beused as a Content_Comparator( ).

FIG. 36 generally depicts pseudo-code for a functionTFIDF_Content_Comparator( ) that we disclose, in accordance with anexemplary embodiment of the invention, that a relevance managementsystem 1140 may use to provide a TF-IDF measure of similarity. Arelevance management system 1140 may pass the functionTFIDF_Content_Comparator( ) (Ref. FIG. 36) to procedureDetermine_Relevance_Matrix( ) (Ref. FIG. 35) as the input argumentContent_Comparagor( ). We disclose in the pseudo code depicted in FIG.36 that a function TFIDF_Content_Comparator( ) may receive twoarguments, named D1 and D2, that represent documents to be compared. Thefunction TFIDF_Content_Comparator( ) (Ref. FIG. 36) makes a call afunction named TF_IDF( ), which represents an implementation of a TF-IDFmethodology, and assigns a returned numeric value from said TF-IDFfunction call to a variable named S, which may be scaled as necessary tofall within a range of 0.0 to 1.0, or other value in an alternativeembodiment, where a value of 0.0 may represent no similarity, and avalue of 1.0 may represent high similarity. FunctionTFIDF_Content_Comparator( ) (Ref. FIG. 36) then returns a scaledcomparison value to Determine_Relevance_Matrix( ). We contemplate abroad range of alternative embodiments whose operation may be similar toa Content_Comparator( ) function such as depicted in FIG. 36, and whichmay be based on alternative document similarity matching techniques, nowknown or hereafter developed, including various implementations ofTF-IDF, LSA, or other techniques. Those skilled in the art willrecognize that such embodiments are intended to be within the scope ofthe present invention.

Further regarding procedure Determine_Relevance_Matrix( ) that wedisclose in reference to FIG. 35, we disclose that the pair of documentsthat are provided to Content_Comparator( ) correspond to a documentassociated with a PD work descriptor element, and a document associatedwith an RFP work descriptor element; we may refer to said documentassociated with a PD work descriptor element as a first “segment”, whichmay have been derived from a decomposition of a PD document, such asperformed during a PD data entry process 2021; and may refer to saiddocument associated with an RFP work descriptor element as a second“segment”, which may have been derived from a decomposition of an RFPdocument, such as performed during an RFP data entry process 2022. Anexample of a PD work descriptor element 2652 is shown in FIG. 26, whoseassociated document (or segment) consists of two components: an elementlabel 2653 whose content is “CONSTRUCTION PHASE” in this case, and anelement description 2654, whose content begins with “Our team of 6software engineers . . . ”. An example of an RFP work descriptor element3152 is shown in FIG. 31, whose associated document (or segment)consists of two components: an element label 3153 whose content is “SOW2—MANAGE THE PROJECT”, and an element description 3154, whose contentbegins with “Work efforts performed in support of this . . . ”.

Further regarding procedure Determine_Relevance_Matrix( ) depicted inFIG. 35, a Min Threshold argument may be a numeric value or metricbetween 0.0 and 1.0, or other value in an alternative embodiment, thatserves to screen out (i.e., eliminate) match results whose values may beconsidered too low to be significant. For example, with aContent_Comparator( ) function configured to return values between 0.0(no similarity) and 1.0 (high similarity), an exemplary Min Thresholdvalue of e.g. 0.25 may be used to consider as “not a match” any elementmatch value that is below 0.25. Clearly, smaller values forMin_Threshold will cause a larger number of matches to be retained, andvice versa, via such simple screening functionality. We contemplatealternative embodiments that may use a broad range of Min_Thresholdvalues, not only the single 0.25 exemplar value as disclosed, and suchembodiments are intended to be within the scope of the presentinvention.

FIG. 37 generally depicts an exemplar execution of procedureDetermine_Relevance_Matrix( ) (depicted in FIG. 35), in accordance withan exemplary embodiment of the invention. Further regarding thefunctionality and operation of procedure Determine_Relevance_Matrix( )depicted in FIG. 35, we disclose that the procedure first creates a new,two-dimensional matrix named Rel, with a first dimension thatcorresponds to the length of the array for argument A, and a seconddimension that corresponds to the length of the array for argument B,and which is initialized to zeros. An exemplar of a new matrix Rel 3730is disclosed in reference to FIG. 37 (which also corresponds to a matrix3434). Next, the procedure iterates across the dimensions of the A and Barrays in a nested fashion, calling a Content_Comparator( ) functionwith successive elements of A and B to determine the similarity betweenthe documents that correspond to these A and B elements. If theresulting “element match value” for that A and B element pair is greaterthan or equal to the Min_Threshold value, the corresponding entry in thematrix Rel is updated with the element match value computed by saidContent_Comparator( ) function. This is shown, for example, by a matrixRel entry 3731 being updated with the value of 0.87, indicating that aContent_Comparator( ) function determined that a document associatedwith a PD element P10 (for “SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT”) has a similarityvalue of 0.87 to a document associated with an RFP element R10 (for “SOW1—DEVELOP SOFTWARE”).

Further regarding the functionality and operation of procedureDetermine_Relevance_Matrix( ) depicted in FIG. 35, we disclose that atthe termination of the nested loops in Determine_Relevance_Matrix( ),the matrix Rel will be populated with those “element match values” forpairs of PD and RFP work descriptor elements that are greater than orequal to Min_Threshold, for the input PD and RFP work descriptors. Thisis shown in our on-going example by the six non-zero entries in thematrix Rel, as shown by 3730. At the termination ofDetermine_Relevance_Matrix( ), the procedure returns the relevancematrix Rel, which a relevance management system 1140 may store in arelevance data store 2045.

ETL Processing

We disclose, in reference to a processing module such as illustrated inFIG. 20, that ETL processing 2060 may provide functionality to performan incremental, multi-stage transformation of data stored in a relevancedata store 2045, into a multidimensional structure (shown as a relevancecube 2070) that supports OLAP-type functionality such as roll-up anddrill-down (i.e., hierarchical aggregation and disaggregation), as wellas filtering or ranking.

FIG. 38 generally depicts pseudo-code for a procedureBuild_Relevance_Table( ) that we disclose, in accordance with anexemplary embodiment of the invention, that a relevance managementsystem 1140 may use to perform various aspects of ETL processing. Wedisclose, in reference to FIG. 38, that a relevance matrix that may havebeen stored in a relevance data store 2045 may be transformed into atable whose row and column structure support basic hierarchicalaggregation, and to which further columns may be added to provideadditional aggregation, filtering, and ranking functionality. Theresulting structure may be stored in a relevance cube 2070 and mayenable multidimensional manipulation for capability determination 2080,RFP relevance determination 2085, and team construction processing 2090,which may be the basis for system functionality for viewing relevanceresults 1350 or teaming facilitation 1360.

Regarding procedure Build_Relevance_Table( ) depicted in FIG. 38, saidprocedure takes as input three arguments: a relevance matrix Rel (ase.g. may be computed by procedure Determine_Relevance_Matrix( ) in FIG.35), and two corresponding arrays named A and B that were used to createthe relevance matrix Rel. (These are the same arrays A and B that wereused by Determine_Relevance_Matrix( ) to compute the matrix Rel.) Wedisclose that the matrix Rel that is used as an argument toBuild_Relevance_Table( ) may in fact be a sub-matrix of the matrixcomputed by Determine_Relevance_Matrix( ); this is shown by a sub-matrix3732, which contains five columns, as opposed to the entire matrix 3730that contains all seven columns. To simplify display by a relevancemanagement system 1140 using output such as FIG. 43A (and to clarify thepresentation in the specification of the present invention) it may beconvenient to process only those columns of matrix Rel that may berepresented on interface such as FIG. 43A. Thus, as is shown by asub-matrix 3732, a matrix Rel argument to procedureBuild_Relevance_Table( ) may contain a subset of a relevance matrix, anda correspondingly shortened array B (indicated here as R10 through R143720).

FIG. 39 generally depicts an exemplar execution of procedureBuild_Relevance_Table( ) (depicted in FIG. 38), in accordance with anexemplary embodiment of the invention. Regarding the functionality andoperation of procedure Build_Relevance_Table( ) depicted in FIG. 38,said procedure begins by constructing a new empty table T whose columnscorrespond to the initial columns in a multidimensional relevance cube2070, which in an embodiment may be “PD Element”, “RFP Element”, “MatchValue”, “PD ID”, “RFP ID”, “PD Owner”, and “RFP Owner”. This isdisclosed in reference to FIG. 39 by the names of the seven columnheadings 3911 for the seven columns (Ref. 3901 through 3907). Theprocedure next iterates across the relevance matrix Rel using two nestedloops, identifying non-zero matrix entries. For each such entry, theprocedure inserts into table T a row with the corresponding PD Element,RFP Element, and relevance matrix match value, as well as thecorresponding project IDs (PD ID and RFP ID) and the correspondingproject owners (PD Owner and RFP Owner). We disclose this in referenceto FIG. 39 by four rows 3912 that have been inserted into table T, whichcorrespond to the four non-zero entries 3732 in FIG. 37.

Further regarding the functionality and operation of procedureBuild_Relevance_Table( ) depicted in FIG. 38, when said procedure hascompleted iterating across the matrix Rel, table T contains a row foreach non-zero match value in the input matrix Rel, as well as thehierarchical relationships of that match value for both the PD and theRFP. Specifically, as related to a data organization we disclose inreference to FIG. 21, table T captures individual Level 4 Workrelationships (namely, the non-zero match values for pairs of single PDwork elements and single RFP work elements), corresponding Level 3Project relationships for PD and RFP work elements (namely, which PD andRFP those matching PD and RFP elements belong to), as well as Level 2Project Owner relationships (namely, owners of the corresponding PD andRFP). As we move forward in the specification for the present invention,table T, produced by the functionality such as procedureBuild_Relevance_Table( ) (Ref. FIG. 38) and illustrated by the exemplardepicted in FIG. 39, may be extended and augmented with additionalcolumns, and it should be clear to a those skilled in the art that saidtable T, and the functionality such as provided byBuild_Relevance_Table( ) (Ref. FIG. 38), form a basis formultidimensional aggregation. At the conclusion ofBuild_Relevance_Table( ) processing, the procedure returns table T,which a relevance management system 1140 may then use to update arelevance cube 2070.

Hierarchical Aggregation Roll-Up By PD Processing

We disclose, in reference to a processing module such as illustrated inFIG. 20, that a relevance management system 1140 may use functionalitysuch as we disclose in Determine_Relevance_Matrix( ) (Ref. FIG. 35) andBuild_Relevance_Table( ) (Ref. FIG. 38) to create a basic relevance cube2070, whose central facts as we disclose in reference to FIG. 39 may bematch values 3903 between individual PD elements 3901 and individual RFPelements 3902. While such detailed information may be interesting (and,central to functionality of a relevance management system 1140embodiment), from an end-user perspective (Ref 210 or 211), it may beimportant to understand such RFP-to-PD relevance results at a higherlevel, namely the relevance of the overall PD to the overall RFP (notmerely how individual elements within each are relevant to one another).

FIG. 40 generally depicts pseudo-code for a procedure Roll_Up_By_PD( )that we disclose, in accordance with an exemplary embodiment of theinvention, that a relevance management system 1140 may use to aggregate(i.e., roll-up) relevance to the PD level, while preserving RFP-elementlevel detail. Procedure Roll_Up_By_PD( ) (Ref. FIG. 40) takes as inputan instance of a relevance table (for example, FIG. 39), such as may beconstructed by Build_Relevance_Table( ) (Ref. FIG. 38). It thendetermines the Project Descriptor identifiers (PD ID and RFP ID)associated with an input relevance table instance, which are PD001 andRFP001 in this example. The procedure next creates a new empty table Twhose left-hand columns represent work elements associated with a workdescriptor for the identified RFP ID; these work elements consist ofelements of a work descriptor array that was passed toBuild_Relevance_Table( ) (Ref. FIG. 38) as argument B. Tracing backthrough this example, we can see that said work elements corresponds toa set {R10, R11, R12, R13, R14}, as shown in an exemplary input 3720.Thus we can see that the headings of the left-hand columns of the newempty table T produced by Roll_Up_By_PD( ) correspond to these values (afirst column 4101 equals R10, a second column 4102 equals R11, and so onthrough a column 4105 equaling R14 in FIG. 41). The remainder of thenames of the columns of the new table T (which appear on the right-handside as a collection of columns 4106) may be set to equal the fourright-hand columns of the input relevance table Rel, namely PD ID 3904,RFP ID 3905, PD Owner 3906, and RFP Owner 3907.

FIG. 41 generally depicts an exemplar execution of procedureRoll_Up_By_PD( ) (depicted in FIG. 40), in accordance with an exemplaryembodiment of the invention. Further regarding the functionality andoperation of procedure Roll_Up_By_PD( ) depicted in FIG. 40, saidprocedure next inserts into table T a new row whose values for the fourright-hand columns of T (representing PD ID, RFP ID, PD Owner, and RFPOwner, in this exemplar) identify the rows being processed, which herecorrespond to values from the first row of the input table Rel. In theexample in FIG. 41 we can see that the four columns 3906 have beenupdated with the values PD001, RFP001, PRIME, and PRIME, which indeedcorrespond to these very same values (Ref. 3904, 3905, 3906, and 3907)from the relevance table in FIG. 39, taken from the first row of thetable 3912.

Further regarding the functionality and operation of procedureRoll_Up_By_PD( ) depicted in FIG. 40, said procedure next iteratesacross the elements in the RFP Elements column of the input relevancematrix Rel, selecting from Rel the corresponding entries for the MatchValue and PD Element from that row (which is identified by the RFPElement of the current iteration). For example, using the relevancetable of FIG. 39 as input table Rel, we can see that when the procedureiterates for RFP element R14 (in a column 3902), the corresponding MatchValue and PD Element are 0.94 and P9, respectively, from a first column3903 and a second column 3901 of FIG. 39, respectively. Using these twovalues selected from the relevance table Rel (0.94 and P9 in theexample) for the current iteration (R14 in this example), the procedureupdates the table T column for the current iteration (the columncorresponding to R14 4105 in this example) by adding to the table entrythe two selected values. This is shown by the table T entrycorresponding to column R14 4105 containing the two values “0.94, [P9]”.We use such notation for clarity of presentation, which can beinterpreted as meaning that the match value between R14 and the PDequals the value 0.94, which comes from (in this case) a single PDelement, namely P9. Note that during the iteration, if two or more PDelements had a match value for a single RFP element, the Match Valuewould represent the sum of these individual PD match values, and the “PDelement” identification would be represented by their union, which maybe expressed using notation such as “[P9, P11]” if P11 were a second PDelement having a match value. We disclose that this type of roll-upaggregation by columns (and corresponding drill-down disaggregation) isthe type of behavior provided by current-art multidimensional databases.The embodiment is not disclosing as inventive the underlyingfunctionality of a multidimensional database to aggregate by e.g.columns, nor is it disclosing as inventive the underlying ability ofrelational databases to represent and store data as tables. Rather, theembodiment is merely employing such functionality (e.g., data stores,aggregation), providing sufficient specification for those skilled inthe art to understand how such functionality is being used and to fullyenable construction of embodiments of the present invention.

Further regarding the functionality and operation of procedureRoll_Up_By_PD( ) depicted in FIG. 40, when said procedure has completediterating across the RFP elements, as represented by a first column 4101through a fifth column 4105 in FIG. 41, table T contains the roll-up(i.e., aggregation) at the PD level of PD element relevance to theindicated RFP. Said procedure returns table T, which a relevancemanagement system 1140 may use to update a relevance cube 2070.

Relevance_Chart

FIG. 42 generally depicts pseudo-code for a procedureUpdate_Relevance_Chart( ) that we disclose, in accordance with anexemplary embodiment of the invention, that a relevance managementsystem 1140 may use to construct a relevance chart. We disclose that theaggregated RFP-to-PD relevance data, such as produced by Roll_Up_By_PD() (Ref. FIG. 40), an example of which is a relevance cube table shown inFIG. 41, may serve as a foundation for constructing a relevance chart asintroduced in FIG. 7.

Regarding procedure Update_Relevance_Chart( ) depicted in FIG. 42, saidprocedure takes as input two arguments, the first named Rel, which maybe a relevance cube table instance such as produced by procedureRoll_Up_By_PD( ) (Ref. FIG. 40), and the second named RUL_ID that servesas “roll-up level” (hence, “RUL”) identifier, taking values such ase.g., “PD ID”, “PD Owner”, and so on, to identify the roll-up level, sothat relevance chart rows may be labeled appropriately. (RUL_ID servesas a “flag” that enables Update_Relevance_Chart( ) to construct multipletypes of relevance charts, as needed, including relevance charts thatare aggregated at the “PD_ID” level, at the “PD Owner” level, and soon.)

FIG. 43A generally depicts a single-row relevance chart for an exemplarexecution of procedure Update_Relevance_Chart( ) depicted FIG. 42, inaccordance with an exemplary embodiment of the invention, using a singlePD Project Descriptor as input. Regarding the functionality andoperation of procedure Update_Relevance_Chart( ) depicted in FIG. 42,said procedure begins by identifying the PD and RFP associated with arelevance table instance (i.e., the PD ID and RFP ID), which are used toretrieve various data (i.e., project name, RFP element labels)associated with said PD and RFP. If a relevance chart instance does notalready exist, the procedure constructs an empty relevance chart bypopulating relevance chart headings with labels associated with the RFPwork elements in a relevance cube table. For example, we can see in FIG.41 that the RFP work elements in a relevance cube table are R10 4101,R11 4102, through R14 4105, which correspond to elements R10, R11,through R14 as a part 3325 of the RFP work descriptor 3315. Thus we cansee, for example, that a relevance chart heading for RFP work elementR10 4101 is associated with RFP work descriptor 3315 element label “SOW1—DEVELOP SOFTWARE”, which the procedure uses to update a relevancechart heading 43A11. The procedure follows an analogous set of steps forR11 4102 through R14 4105 to construct the remainder of the relevancechart column headings 43A10.

Further regarding the functionality and operation of procedureUpdate_Relevance_Chart( ) depicted in FIG. 42, and exemplar execution ofsaid procedure as depicted in FIG. 43A, said procedure next fills in thedescription label in the relevance chart row 43A20 by retrieving theidentifier associated with the argument RUL_ID; for example, if theprocedure is called with RUL_ID equal to the value “PD_ID”, then the rowis labeled with the name associated with the entry in the PD_ID column,which is “PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1” in this case.

Further regarding the operation of procedure Update_Relevance_Chart( )depicted in FIG. 42 and exemplar execution of said procedure as depictedin FIG. 43A, said procedure next iterates across RFP work elements thatmake up columns in an input relevance cube table instance Rel, i.e. R104101 through R14 4105, identifying entries in a Rel table that arenon-empty. In this example, entries for R10, R11, R12, and R14 arenon-empty (Ref. 4101, 4102, 4103, and 4105, respectively), while R13 isempty 4104. For the non-empty entries, the procedure adds a “blackdiamond” (“♦”) indicator to the relevance chart in the correspondingcolumn; for example, the black diamond 43A22 is added to the relevancechart row because the entry for R10 4101 is non-empty (containing theentry “0.87, [P10]”). Processing also associates the corresponding Reltable entries for match value and PD (or, PDs) with the black diamondthat has been added to the relevance chart row (i.e., “0.87” and “P10”are associated with the black diamond 43A22). Regarding the associationof the PD (or, PDs) with the black diamond, as we disclose below, thesaid PDs may be used by a relevance management system 1140 to facilitatedrill-down requests when the “black diamond” entry with which it isassociated has been selected by an end user.

Further regarding the operation of procedure Update_Relevance_Chart( )depicted in FIG. 42, at the end of said procedure execution, therelevance chart has been updated to include a new row that reflects thedata in a relevance cube table that was provided as an input, as shownby FIG. 43A and FIG. 41. The updated relevance chart is returned by theprocedure, and a relevance management system 1140 may use such relevancechart to display relevance results to an end user.

FIG. 43B is a mock-up of a single-row relevance chart that illustratesthe use of alternative exemplar symbols to indicate relevance, inaccordance with an exemplary embodiment of the invention. Regarding theuse of a “black diamond” (“♦”) exemplar symbol to represent or indicaterelevance in a relevance chart, such as produced byUpdate_Relevance_Chart( ) (Ref. FIG. 42) and illustrated in FIG. 43A, aswell as FIG. 7, FIG. 8, FIG. 9, and FIG. 10 above, we disclose inreference to FIG. 43B that an alternative embodiment of procedure suchas Update_Relevance_Chart( ) (Ref. FIG. 42) may use alternative symbolsto represent relevance for an entry, whose appearance, for example, maybe based on the relevance value, or relative relevance value associatedwith said entry. As we illustrate in reference to FIG. 43B, the numericmatch value may be used to alter the appearance of the “black diamond”to reflect e.g. the strength of the match; for example, a relevancemanagement system 1140 may use a larger match value to increase the sizeof the indicator, or change its color or shape, or use any of a varietyof other graphical user interface (GUI) idioms, now known or hereafterdeveloped, to convey to an end user the strength of the match. Asillustrated in FIG. 43B, a relevance management system 1140 may usealternative symbols as indicators, such as those represented by “HarveyBalls” (Reference “Harvey Balls” Harvey Who?”, Mar. 20, 2006,http://digitalroam.typepad.com/digitalroam/2006/03/harvey_balls_ha.html, the entire contents of which isincorporated by reference), or other symbols, to represent relevance ina relevance chart. In the exemplar in FIG. 43B, we illustrate how analternative embodiment of procedure Update_Relevance_Chart( ) (Ref. FIG.42) may represent relevance chart values, such as represented in theexemplar table in FIG. 41, by associating a symbol such as illustratedin a legend 43B10 with an entry in a relevance chart row 43B20, based,for example, upon a value. Here we can see that an alternativeembodiment of procedure Update_Relevance_Chart( ) (Ref. FIG. 42) hasassociated a relevance value of 0.94 4105 with a black circle exemplarsymbol representing “Excellent” (“●”), and a lower relevance value of0.87 4101 with a half-shaded black exemplar circle symbol representing“Very good”. We contemplate an alternative embodiment of procedureUpdate_Relevance_Chart( ) (Ref. FIG. 42), as well as alternativeembodiments of relevance charts such as we disclose in reference to FIG.7, FIG. 8, FIG. 9, and FIG. 10 above; element-to-element relevanceinterfaces such as we disclose in reference to FIG. 52 and FIG. 113;team construction interfaces such as we disclose in reference to FIG.97; proposal outline-to-RFP mapping interfaces such as we disclose inreference to FIG. 105; or proposal rationale artifacts such as wedisclose in reference to FIG. 107 and FIG. 108; that use a broad rangeof symbols and indicators, including variations in size, shape, color,or other dimensions, to represent values in charts or tables, and suchembodiments are intended to be within the scope of the presentinvention.

Further regarding the functionality of procedure Update_Relevance_Chart() depicted in FIG. 42, while said procedure as depicted in FIG. 42discloses functionality to produce as output a two-dimensional relevancechart, we contemplate a broad range of alternative embodiments ofUpdate_Relevance_Chart( ) (Ref. FIG. 42), as well as alternativeembodiments of relevance charts such as we disclose in reference to FIG.7, FIG. 8, FIG. 9, and FIG. 10 above; relevance charts such as wedisclose in reference to FIG. 43A and FIG. 43B; element-to-elementrelevance interfaces such as we disclose in reference to FIG. 52 andFIG. 113; team construction interfaces such as we disclose in referenceto FIG. 97; proposal outline-to-RFP mapping interfaces such as wedisclose in reference to FIG. 105; and proposal rationale artifacts suchas we disclose in reference to FIG. 107 and FIG. 108; that may use abroad range of idioms, now known or hereafter developed, to represent orindicate relevance, or relative relevance, including, but not limitedto, two-, three-, or multi-dimensional graphics and charts, variationsof pie-graphs, bar-graphs, histograms, and other idioms, and suchembodiments are intended to be within the scope of the presentinvention.

Roll-Up By PD for Multiple PD Project Descriptors

FIG. 44 generally depicts an exemplar execution of procedureBuild_Relevance_Table( ) depicted in FIG. 38, in accordance with anexemplary embodiment of the invention, using multiple PD ProjectDescriptors inputs.

FIG. 45 generally depicts an exemplar execution of procedureRoll_Up_By_PD( ) depicted in FIG. 40, in accordance with an exemplaryembodiment of the invention, using multiple PD Project Descriptorsinputs.

In reference to FIG. 44 and FIG. 45 we disclose how as part of directmatch processing 2040, a relevance management system 1140 may useprocedures Build_Relevance_Table( ) (Ref. FIG. 38) and Roll_Up_By_PD( )(Ref. FIG. 40) to process multiple PDs. Continuing the extended exampleshown in FIG. 8, the first four rows of the table 4411 represent the PDwith PD ID of “PD001” 4404, which corresponded to row 822, and whoseconstruction was detailed in FIG. 32, FIG. 33, FIG. 37, and FIG. 39. Wedisclose in reference to FIG. 44 how a relevance management system 1140may use Build_Relevance_Table( ) to process four additional PDs (PD002,PD003, PD004, and PD005, which correspond PDs [Ref. 824, 821, 825, and823, respectively], and to PDs [Ref. 4412, 4421, 4422, and 4430,respectively]) using the same RFP (namely, FIG. 33) as used for PD001previously, to construct the relevance table in FIG. 44. We disclose inreference to FIG. 45 how a relevance management system 1140 may useprocedure Roll_Up_By_PD( ) with the relevance table depicted in FIG. 44as input to produce a relevance cube table for the five PDs (i.e.,PD001, PD002, PD003, PD004, and PD005 as found in a column 4404), eachof whose RFP-to-PD relevance has been determined with respect to RFP001(as noted in a column 4405).

Roll-Up By RFP Processing

FIG. 46 generally depicts pseudo-code for a procedure Roll_Up_By_RFP( )that we disclose, in accordance with an exemplary embodiment of theinvention, that a relevance management system 1140 may use to aggregaterelevance by RFP, in a manner that may be similar to that performed byprocedure Roll_Up_By_PD( ) (Ref. FIG. 40), as we have disclosed above.Procedure Roll_Up_By_RFP( ) takes as input two arguments: an instance ofa relevance cube table named Rel, such as may be produced by procedureRoll_Up_By_PD( ) (Ref. FIG. 40), as well as a two dimensional matrix ofRFP-element scaling weights named Weights, an example of which is shownin FIG. 47.

FIG. 47 generally depicts an exemplar Weights matrix, in accordance withan exemplary embodiment of the invention, such as may be used byprocedure Roll_Up_By_RFP( ) depicted in FIG. 46. Such a Weights matrixmay be used by a relevance management system 1140 to proportionallyscale the relative importance of individual RFP element match values asthey are aggregated (i.e., rolled up). The process of incorporatingscaling weights during aggregation for ranking is disclosed in greaterdetail below, including in reference to FIG. 91, which discloses how anend user may enter relative weights, such as weights 9145 for individualRFP elements 9144. These relative weights 9145 may be representedinternally by a relevance management system 1140 as a two dimensionalmatrix, such as that which is passed to the Roll_Up_By_RFP( ) procedureas the Weight matrix argument, or another suitable structure.

FIG. 48 generally depicts an exemplar execution of procedureRoll_Up_By_RFP( ) depicted in FIG. 46, in accordance with an exemplaryembodiment of the invention. Regarding the functionality and operationof procedure Roll_Up_By_RFP( ) depicted in FIG. 46, said procedurebegins by adding a new column, in one embodiment the column mayidentified, such as by the name “RFP-to-PD Relevance”, to the table Rel,as shown in FIG. 48 by a column 4801, which may used to record therolled-up relevance. Next, the procedure processes each row in the tableRel, summing across the RFP work elements in each row by computing theproduct of that RFP work element's match value and its correspondingWeight matrix value. When the noted row summation is complete, arelevance management system 1140 may update the RFP-to-PD Relevancecolumn 4801 of the Rel table with the result. We can see that for thefirst row in the example 4808, a relevance management system 1140 firstcalculates the value 0.87*1.0, which represents the RFP element matchvalue 4802 for R10 (which is 0.87), multiplied by the correspondingweight value 4702 for R10 4721 from the weight table FIG. 47 (which is1.0). By further adding to said summation the corresponding productsassociated with elements R11 through R14, a relevance management system1140 computes in this example an RFP-to-PD Relevance 4801 value of 3.61,and may update the first row of the table 4808.

Further regarding the operation of procedure Roll_Up_By_RFP( ) depictedin FIG. 46, when said procedure has completed processing all rows of thetable Rel, the RFP-to-PD Relevance column 4801 has been updated for eachrow in the table to reflect the weighted sum of the RFP-element matchvalues (Ref. 4802 through 4806) for each row, scaled by the Weightmatrix (Ref. FIG. 47). Procedure Roll_Up_By_RFP( ) (Ref. FIG. 46)returns the relevance cube table Rel, which a relevance managementsystem 1140 may use to update a relevance cube 2070.

Project Relevance Summary and Detail Display Interface

FIG. 49 generally depicts a project relevance summary interface, inaccordance with an exemplary embodiment of the invention, that may use arelevance chart visual display metaphor, such as produced byUpdate_Relevance_Chart( ) (Ref. FIG. 42) or other suitable displaymetaphors, now known or hereafter developed, to display to end usersrelevance results, such as stored in a relevance cube 2070.

A project relevance summary interface 4910, such as shown in FIG. 49,presents relevance results in a way that facilitates, in particular, acapability-seeking end user 1130 in identifying and understanding theexperience and capabilities as provided by capability-providing endusers 1110. For example, the “perspective” that the interface shown inFIG. 49 provides is of (possibly multiple) PDs 4922 as they relate to a(possibly single) “reference RFP” 4926, which is associated with acapability-seeking end user. As such, a capability-seeking end user maybe provided an overview and interactive, drill-down functionality forunderstanding PDs as they relate to a specific RFP associated with saidcapability-seeking end user.

We disclose that a project relevance summary interface 4910 may becomprised of multiple sections, such as a project relevance summarysection 4920, a project relevance detail section 4930, or a projectrelevance actions section 4940, and that each such section can beconsidered its own interface, as can each field within a section. Theviewing of relevance results in a project relevance summary interface4910 may be facilitated by a controller module 1142 and an interfacemodule 1143, as we disclose in reference to FIG. 11, which may generateor manage interfaces and application workflow to present the results toan end user. A project relevance summary interface 4910 may enable anend user to visualize the relevance of a PD as it relates to an RFP, andperform actions based upon these results, including but not limited todrill-down and navigation of relevance results.

Regarding an interface, such as a project relevance summary interface4910, those skilled in the art will recognize the well knownmodel-view-controller (MVC) paradigm, which may be used in interfaces,such as 4910 (and others such as shown in FIG. 50, FIG. 51, FIG. 52,FIG. 58, FIG. 58, FIG. 52, and 97), to provide functionality to displaya view (such as a relevance chart, or other end user-facing displayidiom) from a suitable model (here, a relevance cube table, such as FIG.48), and perform actions via a controller in response to user-inputactions, for example the selection of a row (e.g., 4923) or element(e.g., 4924) within said interface.

Regarding a project relevance summary section 4920, as we disclose infurther detail below, said section may provide drill down functionality,which it may perform by retrieving information to populate e.g. aproject relevance detail section 4930 for a selected row 4923, usinginformation in a selected relevance chart row 4923 and a correspondingrow in the model (e.g., a relevance cube table row 4808 in our example).For example, a relevance management system 1140 may providefunctionality such that when a row is selected 4923, said system may beable to determine a Project Descriptor ID (PD ID) from the table (suchas via PD ID column in 4807), which is PD001 in this case. Such PD IDidentifier may enable a relevance management system 1140 to access a PDdata store 2031 to retrieve PD information. Similarly, a relevancemanagement system 1140 may use functionality such as an RFP identifierin a table (such as an RFP ID column 4807), RFP001 in this case, toaccess information in an RFP data store 2032.

Further regarding a project relevance summary section 4920, we disclosethat said section may summarize PD relevance results with respect to areference RFP 4925, which may use a relevance chart, such as one thatconsists of the RFP SOW elements 4921 an end user has indicated fordisplay, and corresponding relevance chart rows 4922 for PDs, or othersuitable display format. A project relevance summary section 4920 isillustrated as displaying the RFP-to-PD relevance data of FIG. 48, inFIG. 49.

Further regarding a project relevance summary section 4920, we disclosethat said section may provide functionality for an end user tovisualize, interact with, or navigate relevance results (such as theexemplar results shown in FIG. 48). As shown in FIG. 49, a projectrelevance summary section 4920 may provide functionality to display anindicator of relative relevance, such as a column that indicatesrelevance ranking 4925, which may be used to display relevance chartrows 4922 in various orders (e.g., descending relevance, with projecthaving highest relevance appearing at the top of the table), such as maybe based on the RFP-to-PD relevance column of a relevance cube table4801.

Further regarding a project relevance summary section 4920, we disclosethat an end user may be able to select a project to obtain more detailedinformation about said project; we disclose said selection functionalityby the presence of an indicator, such as a black triangle (“

”) 4923, or other suitable indicator, next to a row in a relevancechart, such as for PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1 in this example, indicatingselection of said project. As a result, detail may be displayed for aselected project on a project relevance detail section 4930; such detailmay include, but is not limited to, multiple elements such as a name ofa selected project 4931. We contemplate a broad range of alternativeindicators for selection, such as high-lighting or other graphical userinterface idioms, now known or hereafter developed, as may be used in analternative embodiment, and such embodiments are intended to be withinthe scope of the present invention.

Further regarding a project relevance summary section 4920, we disclosethat an end user may further select, such as within a currently selectedproject 4923, an RFP SOW element, such as indicated by a circled blackdiamond 4924, or other suitable indicator; we contemplate a broad rangeof alternative indicators for selection, such as high-lighting or othergraphical user interface idioms, now known or hereafter developed, asmay be used in an alternative embodiment, and such embodiments areintended to be within the scope of the present invention. Using a SOWelement selection, a relevance management system 1140 may then provideadditional information, using functionality such as a project relevancedetail section 4930.

Regarding a project relevance detail section 4930, we disclose that saidsection may provide information that may include, but is not limited to,an indication of a selected SOW element 4932, as well as detailedinformation regarding substantiation of a SOW element relevance from anoriginal project description 4933. A relevance management system 1140may provide functionality to drill down, navigate, or “trace back”, suchas through a relevance chart, to an original PD to retrieve (such asfrom a PD Project Descriptor work descriptor 2515, as shown by anelement 2655) and display substantiation 4933 for a selected SOW elementRFP-to-PD relevance (Ref 4924 and 4932); we disclose that saiddrill-down or navigation functionality may be extremely powerful, as itmay enable an end user to verify or validate immediately that a PD isindeed relevant to an RFP, and very importantly, the basis for thatrelevance 4933.

Further regarding a project relevance detail section 4930, we disclosethat said section may provide information on a project regarding therelevance of said project 4935, such as relevance rating of said project4936, as well as the relevance rating 4937 of a selected SOW element(such as indicated by a first selection 4924 or a second selection 4932)associated with said project. A project relevance detail section 4930may also provide an end user with functionality such as represented by“View RFP details . . . ” 4934, to view details for a selected SOWelement (such as indicated by a first selection 4924 or a secondselection 4932), which may enable an end user to “trace back” throughRFP SOW elements 4921 to an original RFP SOW element description, suchas originally entered in a relevance management system 1140.

FIG. 50 generally depicts an RFP SOW element detail interface 5010, inaccordance with an exemplary embodiment of the invention, that arelevance management system 1140 may provide when functionality suchrepresented by “View RFP details . . . ” 4934 is invoked by an end user.A relevance management system 1140 may provide an RFP SOW element detailinterface 5010, such as a “pop up” interface or embedded in areferencing interface (such as an interface 4910), that may display toan end user for a selected RFP SOW element 5020 a more lengthy RFP SOWelement description 5030, such as that entered in a relevance managementsystem 1140 (Ref 3153 and 3154). Such functionality may enable an enduser to simultaneously position a substantiation for SOW elementrelevance from an original project description 4933 in close proximity(for example, side-by-side) with an original, detailed RFP requirementsfor said SOW element (Ref 5020 and 5030). As such, an end user may beprovided functionality so said end user can effectively validate thatthe SOW element experience cited by a PD 4933 is indeed supportive of,and in alignment with, a corresponding RFP SOW requirement (Ref. 5020and 5030).

Further regarding an RFP SOW element detail interface 5010, we disclosethat indicator field that said interface may use to display an RFP SOWelement 5020 may also include functionality for an end user to selectalternative SOW elements for display. Such selection functionality maybe provided in the form of a selector, such as a drop-down selector 5021(which may be indicated by a symbol, such as the exemplar “▾”), whichwhen invoked may provide an end user with a list of RFP SOW elementsthat may be selected. We contemplate a broad range of alternativeselectors, such as drop-down menus or other graphical user interfaceidioms, now known or hereafter developed, as may be used in analternative embodiment, and such embodiments are intended to be withinthe scope of the present invention.

When an end user has made a selection, a relevance management system1140 may provide functionality such that an RFP SOW element shown onfield 5020 may be updated with a corresponding selected RFP SOW elementlabel, such as entered during RFP data entry 2022 (e.g., “SOW 1.3PERFORM TESTING”), and an RFP SOW element description field 5030 mayupdated with a corresponding detailed description, such as also enteredduring RFP data entry 2022. A relevance management system 1140 may alsoprovide an end user an ability to close 5040 an RFP SOW element detailinterface.

Regarding a project relevance actions section 4940, said section mayenable an end user to instruct a relevance management system 1140 toperform actions, including but not limited to saving the results 4941 ofa relevance chart for reference at a later time, or for printing orworking with off-line in softcopy as an artifact, such as to facilitateproposal development 233; contacting the owner of a PD 4943 in order todiscuss and facilitate teaming partnerships, as we disclose in referenceto FIG. 19; as well as further options 4944. In addition, an end usermay have the ability to conclude processing 4945, which may return anend user to a main menu.

Regarding further options that may be selected from a project relevanceactions section 4940, one of the options an end user may be able toperform, through functionality such as represented by “More options . .. ” 4944, is to update the columns or other information that may bedisplayed, such as in a project relevance summary 4920. As shown in FIG.49, a project relevance summary interface 4920 may provide functionalityto display an indicator of relative relevance, such as a column thatindicates relevance ranking 4925. An end user may have the ability toinstruct a relevance management system 1140 to update the interface,such as the columns, to display additional information for each project;this is shown in FIG. 51.

FIG. 51 generally depicts a project relevance summary section 5110, inaccordance with an exemplary embodiment of the invention, where an enduser has replaced a relevance ranking column 4925 with a column thatindicates a project description owner 5113, as discussed previously inFIG. 9. A project description owner column 5113 may be populated usingdata from a PD Owner column 4406 of a relevance cube table. While wedisclose in reference to FIG. 51 functionality in which a relevanceranking column 4925 has in effect been replaced by a project descriptionowner column 5113, a relevance management system 1140 may providefunctionality to support simultaneous display, such as in a projectrelevance summary section (Ref. 4920 and 5110), of both relevanceranking 4925 and project description owner 5113, as well as othercolumns or information, such as may provide further description of aproject. As we disclose in reference to FIG. 51, once again a projectrelevance summary section 5110 may include a reference RFP 5116, RFP SOWelements 5111, relevance chart rows 5112, as well as functionality toselect a project 5114, analogous to a first selection 4923 in FIG. 49,and a specific SOW element 5115, analogous to a second selection 4924 inFIG. 49, for display, such as using functionality provided in a projectrelevance detail section 4930. As we disclose in reference to FIG. 51,an end user may have an ability to sort (i.e., group) projects,including by project description owner 5113, which may give an end useran ability to see all projects associated with a single owner, such asdisplayed as contiguous rows using functionality such as in a relevancechart 5112. Such functionality may provide an end user an “overview” ofthe experience that each project owner brings, as demonstrated by theirprojects.

FIG. 52 generally depicts an RFP-to-PD element-to-element (E2E)relevance interface 5210, in accordance with an exemplary embodiment ofthe invention. Regarding additional options that may be selected from aproject relevance actions section 4940, such as represented by “Moreoptions . . . ” 4944, one such option may be the ability to view an“expanded” or “drill-down” version of a selected project 4923. Arelevance management system 1140 may provide functionality, such asshown in FIG. 52, to present to an end user information such asRFP-to-PD “element-to-element” (E2E) relevance matrix results, such asmay have been computed by Determine_Relevance_Matrix( ) (Ref. FIG. 35)and subsequent processing by a call to Build_Relevance_Table( ) (Ref.FIG. 38). Such RFP-to-PD E2E relevance results may be presented to anend user, using functionality such as an RFP-to-PD E2E relevanceinterface 5210, which we disclose may be comprised of sections, such asa PD owner section 5215, an RFP owner section 5216, an RFP-to-PD E2Erelevance section 5220, a PD-element detail section 5230, or anRFP-element detail section 5240, and that each such section can beconsidered its own interface, as can each field within a section. Wefurther disclose that an RFP-to-PD E2E relevance interface 5210 wedisclose in reference to FIG. 52 may provide similar functionality to anE2E relevance interface 11310 we disclose in reference to FIG. 113.

Regarding functionality such as provided by an RFP-to-PD E2E relevancesection 5220, which may include a relevance chart type format or othersuitable display metaphor to present results, those skilled in the artwill recognize that the black diamonds (“♦”), such as shown in saidsection 5220, correspond to non-zero entries in a relevance matrix(e.g., a matrix 3730 in FIG. 37, in an exemplar), which represents thebasis for a model that an RFP-to-PD E2E relevance section 5220 mayrender as a view, and which may be performed using an MVC paradigm aspreviously discussed. Here again, we contemplate a broad range ofalternative embodiments in which the so called “black diamonds” entriesand the relevance chart in the E2E relevance section 5220 may berepresented or displayed in alternative ways in alternative embodiments,as we disclose in reference to FIG. 43B above.

Further regarding functionality such as provided by an RFP-to-PD E2Erelevance interface 5210, said interface may provide sections to provideinformation to identify a PD or a PD owner 5215, or may also identify anRFP or an RFP owner 5216. As we disclose in reference to FIG. 52, anRFP-to-PD E2E relevance section 5220 may include information on a PD,here shown by PD work elements 5221, as well as information on an RFP,here shown by RFP work elements 5222. An RFP-to-PD E2E relevance section5220 may indicate the relevance of a PD element to an RFP element by thepresence of a black diamond, or other indicator as disclosed inreference to FIG. 43B. An RFP-to-PD E2E relevance section 5220 mayenable an end user to select entries, for example as shown by a circle5223 indicating selection of the intersection of the PD “ProjectManagement” element 5221 and the RFP “SOW 2—Manage the Project” element5222. As a result of such selection, functionality such as on anRFP-to-PD E2E relevance interface 5210 may present to an end useradditional information, which may include, but is not limited to, therelevance value associated with said selected RFP and PD elements, shownin FIG. 52 by the relevance value 5224 displaying a value 0.94, whichcorresponds to the relevance of the PD Project Management element to theRFP SOW 2—Manage the Project element, as may have been determined by aprocedure Determine_Relevance_Matrix( ) (Ref. FIG. 35), andcorresponding to the entry 0.94 3732. Selection 5223 of a matrix elementthat does not contain a black diamond indicator, or other suitableindicator as disclosed in reference to FIG. 43B, may exercisefunctionality such as to display a relevance value 5240 of 0.0, or othersuitable indicator.

Regarding functionality that may be provided by an RFP-to-PD E2Erelevance interface 5210 when an RFP-to-PD entry has been selected, suchas illustrated by a selection 5223, we disclose that said interface mayprovide additional information using a PD-element detail section 5230 oran RFP-element detail section 5240, whose functionality and operationmay be similar to one another. An element detail section (such as afirst section 5230 or a second section 5240) may present the label ordescription, or other relevant information, for said selected element,as shown in a PD-element detail section by a first section component5231 or a second section component 5232, respectively.

Regarding further functionality of an RFP-to-PD E2E relevance interface5210, said interface may enable an end user to quickly review andnavigate detailed RFP-to-PD relevance results that a relevancemanagement system 1140 has computed for a PD and an RFP. Thefunctionality a relevance management system 1140 may provide to select5223 and drill down on specific RFP requirements (Ref. 5222 and 5240) or“trace back”, such as via a corresponding PD work element 5221 todisplay detailed substantiation 5232, is extremely powerful, as itenables an end user to verify and validate immediately the relevance ofa PD to an RFP at a fine-grained level, using information that may havebeen reached via intuitive “drill down” navigation from a “rolled up”project relevance summary section (e.g., such as shown in FIG. 49, aswell as in reference to FIG. 58 and FIG. 60, as we disclose below).

Expanding Concepts to Process PDs and RFPs in Multiple Dimensions

Thus far, the specification of the present invention has disclosedfunctionality regarding relevance of one or more PDs to a single RFP,and indeed in reference to a project relevance summary interface 4910 wehave disclosed how we may summarize the relevance of multiple PDs 4922to a single reference RFP 4926. It is important to understand that justas a single capability-providing end user (i.e., a PD owner) may beassociated with multiple PDs, so too may a single capability-seeking enduser (i.e., an RFP owner) be associated with multiple RFPs; andfurthermore, a group of end users in a relevance management system 1140may include multiple PD owners, as well as multiple RFP owners. Aspectsof such a broadened perspective of an end-user base (and PDs and RFPswith which said end-user base is associated) may be visualized via FIG.53.

FIG. 53 generally depicts a structure for processing PDs and RFPs inmultiple dimensions, in accordance with an exemplary embodiment of theinvention. We disclose in reference to FIG. 53 a matrix in which eachrow (for example, a row 5311) represents a single PD, and each column(for example, a column 5321) represents a single RFP. Thus we can seethat an intersection of a column and a row (for example, an intersection5330) represents relevance of an RFP to a PD. We have purposely shownthe exemplar matrix in FIG. 53 as having five rows 5310, to correspondto the five PDs in our extended example, i.e., PD001, PD002, PD003,PD004, and PD005 as indicated in the PD ID column 4807 of FIG. 48.Regarding columns in the matrix 5320, if we consider a column 5321 ascorresponding to RFP001 (i.e., the RFP whose RFP ID is RFP001), and arow 5311 as corresponding to PD002 (i.e., the PD whose PD ID is PD002),then the highlighted entry in the matrix 5330 represents the relevanceof RFP001 to PD002, which corresponds to a row 4809.

We disclose in reference to FIG. 53 that the matrix of rows 5310 andcolumns 5320 represents a Cartesian product, between all PDs (i.e., rows5310) and all RFPs (i.e., columns 5320). While the dimensionality ofFIG. 53 is shown as two (i.e., rows and columns), the dimensionality ofthe Cartesian product of PDs and RFPs may indeed be greater when weconsider the hierarchical relationships as we disclose in reference toFIG. 21. Each PD and RFP in fact may represent an aggregation of itsconstituent PD and RFP work elements, respectively. Furthermore, recallthat each PD may have a PD owner, and said PD owner may possibly(actually, likely) be the owner of more than one PD; and similarly forRFPs, each RFP may have an RFP owner, and each possibly (again, likely)may own more than one RFP.

Star Schema to Support Hierarchical Aggregation

FIG. 54 generally depicts a star schema supporting hierarchicalaggregation, in accordance with an exemplary embodiment of theinvention. We disclose that the multidimensional aspects (i.e., of PDowners owning multiple PDs, and RFP owners owning multiple RFPs) that weexpressed in FIG. 21, in particular in reference to Level 2 and Level 3,may be represented in a data warehouse or OLAP-type “star schema” asshown in FIG. 54. As disclosed earlier with respect to FIG. 39, here tooa central fact corresponds to a match value 5431 between an individualPD element and an individual RFP element, as identified by the keys PDID 5432 and PD Element 5413, and RFP ID 5433 and RFP Element 5423,respectively. As we disclose in further detail below, use of a starschema structure may facilitate hierarchical aggregation by PD elementand PD ID 5413, which may correspond to Level 4 and Level 3 in FIG. 21,respectively; as well as PD Owner and Team 5411, which may correspond toLevel 2 and Level 1 in FIG. 21, respectively. For RFPs, use of a starschema structure may facilitate similar hierarchical aggregation, by RFPelement and RFP ID 5423, which may correspond to Level 4 and Level 3 inFIG. 21, respectively; as well as RFP Owner 5421, which may correspondto Level 2 in FIG. 21.

Aggregation Processing for a Capability-Seeking End User

FIG. 55 generally depicts an aggregation processing flow for acapability-seeking end user, in accordance with an exemplary embodimentof the invention, in reference to which we further disclose the overalloperation and functionality of a relevance management system 1140. Theprocessing flow we disclose in reference to FIG. 55, which may be usedwith an interface, such as a capabilities summary interface 5810, mayprovide a mode of operation that a capability-seeking end user 1130 mayfind useful. We disclose in reference to FIG. 55 that a relevancemanagement system 1140 may retrieve from a relevance cube 5510 a sliceof a relevance cube table where said slice represents an RFP that isowned by an end user (i.e. a selection from a relevance cube of table ofrows having a specific RFP ID associated with end user), which mayreturn PD-Element-to-RFP-Element relevance data 5520. A relevancemanagement system 1140 may roll up said data by PD 5521 (as well asperform filtering or ranking, as we disclose below) to create aggregatedPD-to-RFP-Element relevance data 5530; which may then be further rolledup by PD Owner 5531 (and also filtered or ranked, as we disclose below)to create further aggregated PD-Owner-to-RFP-Element relevance data5540; which may finally be rolled up even further by Team 5541 (and alsofiltered or ranked) to create aggregated, Team-to-RFP-Element relevancedata 5550. As indicated by a Level 1 capability 5542, a Level 2capability 5532, and a Level 3 capability 5522, a relevance managementsystem 1140 may also support drill-down (disaggregation), in which anelement from a set of aggregated data may be selected, andmore-detailed, expanded data associated with said selected element maybe referenced.

Regarding further disclosures in reference to FIG. 55, we disclose thatthe processing flow shown in FIG. 55 provides a method for identifying,aggregating, and navigating relevance information, which may be wellsuited to support the needs of a capability-seeking end user 1130. Wefurther disclose that by virtue of the multi-dimensional nature andstructure of such relevance information (as we disclose in reference toFIG. 21, FIG. 22, and FIG. 54), aggregated relevance results such asshown in FIG. 55 (Ref. 5520, 5530, 5540, and 5550), as well as otherrelevance results, may be determined by alternative embodiments. Wecontemplate a broad range of such alternative embodiments, which mayinclude, but are not limited to, performing aggregation acrossdimensions other than e.g. PD element, PD, PD owner, or team, to achievesimilar relevance results, or using alternate dimensions (orcombinations of dimensions) for filtering, ranking, or aggregating, aswe disclose in reference to FIG. 22, again to achieve similar relevanceresults. Those skilled in the art will recognize that such alternativeembodiments for identifying, aggregating, or navigating (as well asfiltering or ranking) relevance information may determine similarrelevance results to those we disclose in reference to FIG. 55, and suchembodiments are intended to be within the scope of the presentinvention.

Further regarding disclosure in reference to FIG. 55, the functionalityprovided by roll-up or drill-down operations, such as we disclose inreference to FIG. 55, may be implemented using current-artmultidimensional databases, which provide OLAP-type functionality foraggregation and disaggregation, or by using procedures such asBuild_Relevance_Table( ) (Ref. FIG. 38), Roll_Up_By_PD (Ref. FIG. 40),Roll_Up_By_RFP( ) (Ref. FIG. 46), and similar procedures, or acombination of such techniques.

FIG. 56 generally depicts an exemplar execution of Roll-Up-By-PD-Ownerprocessing, in accordance with an exemplary embodiment of the invention,in which we further illustrate aggregation processing, such as wedisclose in reference to FIG. 55, using data from our extended example.We disclose in reference to FIG. 56 how RFP-to-PD relevance data in arelevance cube table such as illustrated in FIG. 48 (which correspondsto the PD-to-RFP-Element relevance data 5530) may be rolled-up by PDOwner. We disclose how a relevance management system 1140 may aggregatetogether the rows, such as the two rows in FIG. 48 that correspond to PDOwner “Prime” (a first row 4808 and a second row 4809), to create asingle row, such as a row 5608 in the table of FIG. 56. The resulting“RFP-to-PD-Owner Relevance” 5601 for said row 5608 represents theaggregation (i.e., sum) across the two rows of the table in FIG. 48(said first row 4808 and said second row 4809) for the“RFP-to-PD-Relevance” column 4801, namely 3.61 plus 1.58, which equals5.19 as shown in FIG. 56. Similarly, for example, the value for R12relevance (which corresponds to a column 4804 in FIG. 48 and a column5604 in FIG. 56) represents the sum of 0.88 plus 0.77 (from said firstrow 4808 and said second row 4809, respectively), which equals 1.65, asshown in FIG. 56. For clarity of presentation, we have omitted in FIG.56 the aggregation of the PD-element references that we depicted in FIG.48 (e.g., the “[P13]” and “[P10]” that appear in column 4804 for saidfirst row 4808 and said second row 4809, respectively). As was the casefor the previously computed relevance cube table results (e.g., asillustrated in FIG. 39, FIG. 41, and FIG. 45), the aggregated resultsmay be stored in a relevance cube 2070.

Capabilities Summary Interface with Project Relevance Drill-Down

FIG. 57 generally depicts a single-row relevance chart for an exemplarexecution of procedure Update_Relevance_Chart( ) usingRoll-Up-By-PD-Owner input, in accordance with an exemplary embodiment ofthe invention. We disclose in reference to FIG. 57 a relevance chartthat a relevance management system 1140 may construct forPD-Owner-to-RFP-Element data 5540, such as illustrated for a row 5608 inFIG. 56. A relevance management system 1140 may use functionality suchas procedure Update_Relevance_Chart( ) (Ref. FIG. 42) to construct arelevance chart, such as shown in FIG. 57, from a row 5608 of FIG. 56,passing the procedure an argument “PD Owner” as RUL_ID so that theresulting row 5720 may be labeled with the name of the PD Owner (PRIMEin this case).

FIG. 58 generally depicts a capabilities summary interface 5810 withproject relevance drill-down, in accordance with an exemplary embodimentof the invention. A relevance management system 1140 may enable an enduser to view capability summary results, which may be facilitated by acontroller module 1142 and an interface module 1143, as illustrated inFIG. 11, which may generate or manage interfaces and applicationworkflow, such as for an interface 5810 in FIG. 58, to present resultsto an end user, which may include the use of a relevance chart, or othersuitable format, with drill-down functionality.

Regarding functionality we disclose in reference to FIG. 58, as with theinterfaces shown previously in FIG. 49 and FIG. 51, the interface shownin FIG. 58 may provide functionality to present capability summaryresults in a way that facilitates, in particular, a capability-seekingend user 1130 in identifying and understanding the experience andcapabilities as provided by a capability-providing end user 1110. Hereagain the “perspective” that an interface as shown in FIG. 58 mayprovide is of (possibly multiple) potential team members as they relateto a (possibly single) “reference RFP” associated with acapability-seeking end user. As we disclose in reference to FIG. 58, acapability-seeking end user may be provided, an overview or interactive,drill-down functionality for understanding potential team membercapabilities as they relate to a capability-seeking end user's specificRFP.

We further disclose, in reference to a capabilities summary interface5810, that said interface may be comprised of sections, such as acapabilities summary section 5820, a project relevance summary section5830, a project relevance detail section 5840, or a capabilities actionssection 5850, and that each such section can be considered its owninterface, as can each field within a section.

Regarding a capabilities summary section 5820, said section maysummarize potential team member capabilities with respect to a referenceRFP 5825, which may use a relevance chart that includes RFP SOW elements5821 an end user has indicated for display, and corresponding relevancechart rows 5822 that display capabilities of potential team members5823, or other suitable format to display relevance. In a capabilitiessummary section 5820, an end user may be provided functionality toselect a potential team member to obtain more detailed information aboutone of more projects associated with said potential team member; suchselection may be indicated, and is illustrated in one embodiment, by thepresence of an exemplar black triangle (“

”) 5824, or other suitable indicator (such as we disclose above inreference to a selection 4923 in FIG. 49), next to a row in a relevancechart (such as for SUB 1), indicating selection of a potential teammember. As a result, detail may be displayed for said selected teammember, using functionality such as a project relevance summary section5830.

Regarding a project relevance summary section 5830, said section mayprovide detail for a reference RFP 5836, which may include multipleelements, and may summarize specified RFP SOW elements 5831 for one ormore projects 5832 with which said potential team member 5835 isassociated. The functionality of a project relevance summary section5830 may be analogous and corresponds to functionality provided by aproject relevance summary section (Ref 4920 and 5110) such as wedisclose in reference to FIG. 49 and FIG. 51. Analogously, a projectrelevance summary section 5830 may provide an end user the ability toselect a specific project 5833 and SOW element 5834 to receiveadditional “drill down” detail on said selections, which a relevancemanagement system 1140 may provide via functionality such as a projectrelevance detail interface 5840, which may provide analogousfunctionality and correspond to a project relevance detail section 4930.

Regarding a capabilities actions section 5850, said section may enablean end user to instruct a relevance management system 1140 to performactions, including, but not limited to, saving a result 5851 of acapabilities summary or drill-down for reference at a later time, or forprinting or working with off-line in softcopy as an artifact tofacilitate proposal development 233; contacting a capability owner 5853to discuss and facilitate teaming partnerships, as we disclose inreference to FIG. 19; as well as more options 5854 that may include, butare not limited to, functionality such as opening a PD-to-RFP E2Erelevance interface 5210 to view detailed information (such as RFP SOWwork-element requirements, PD work-element level substation, and so on),such as regarding a selected project 5833. In addition, an end user mayhave the ability to conclude processing 5855 by returning to a mainmenu.

Regarding functionality of a capabilities summary interface 5810, saidinterface may provide a capability-seeking end user 1130 powerful meanswith which to identify, navigate, or understand capabilities ofpotential team members 1110. The functionality provided by saidinterface to perform one or more actions, such as selecting from aranked list of potential team members 5824, drilling down into a list ofrelevant projects that a potential team members brings 5830, and thenselecting from said list 5832 specific projects 5833 for project-leveldetail 5840, including substantiation 5843 at the individual SOW-elementlevel (Ref. 5834 and 5842), may enable a capability-seeking end user1130 to identify and vet potential team members 1110 rapidly andefficiently, which may significantly reduce the cost of businessdevelopment associated with these time-consuming activities. Thefunctionality that a capabilities summary interface 5810 may provide todrill down and “trace back”, such as through one or more relevancecharts, to an original PD to retrieve and display substantiation 5843for a selected SOW element RFP-to-PD relevance (such as a firstselection 5834 or a second selection 5842) may be extremely powerful, asit may enable an end user to verify and validate immediately, via saiddrill-down functionality, the capabilities of potential team members, orthe experience upon which said (claimed) capabilities may be based.

Aggregation Processing for a Capability-Providing End User

Recall that, generally speaking, a relevance management system 1140 maysupport two categories of end users, namely capability-seeking end users1130 and capability-providing end users 1110, and that while bothcategories of end users may be fundamentally interested in similarinformation (namely, which RFPs relate to which PDs) the way in whicheach category of end user may be best served in identifying, viewing,and navigating such information may differ. For example, acapability-seeking end user may be best served by viewing suchinformation from the “perspective” of an RFP with which they areassociated, in order to identify for said RFP the (possibly multiple)PDs and capabilities as provided by capability-providing end users thatmay be of use in responding to said RFP. In other words, “Find me allthe current PDs and team members I should consider using, to respond tomy current RFP.” On the other hand, a capability-providing end user maybest served by viewing such information from a complementary“perspective”, namely that of a PD (or, multiple PDs) with which theyare associated, in order to identify (possibly multiple) RFPs whoserequirements call for the experience and capabilities demonstrated insaid PDs. In other words, “Find me all the current RFPs where my PDproject experience could contribute to a winning proposal.”

The processing flow and interface we disclosed previously in referenceto FIG. 55 and FIG. 58, respectively, provide functionality to presentrelevance results from a perspective that may facilitatecapability-seeking end users 1130 in identifying PDs and capabilities ofcapability-providing end users 1110. In contrast, the processing flowand interface we disclose in reference to FIG. 59 and FIG. 60,respectively, provide functionality for a complementary perspective, tofacilitate a capability-providing end user in identifying RFPs wheresaid capability-providing end user experience and capabilities can makesignificant contributions.

FIG. 59 generally depicts an aggregation processing flow for acapability-providing end user, in accordance with an exemplaryembodiment of the invention. We disclose in reference to FIG. 59 that arelevance management system 1140 may retrieve 5915 from a relevance cube5910 a slice of a relevance cube table for a PD owner (i.e. a selectionfrom a relevance cube of table rows associated with a specific PDOwner), which may return PD-Element-to-PD-Element relevance data 5920. Arelevance management system 1140 may provide functionality to roll upsuch data by PD 5921 (as well as perform filtering or ranking, as wedisclose below) to create aggregated PD-to-RFP-Element relevance data5930); which may be further rolled up by RFP 5931 (and also filtered orranked, as we disclose below) to create further aggregated PD-to-RFPrelevance data 5940; which may finally be rolled up even further by PDOwner 5941 (and also filtered or ranked) to create aggregated,PD-Owner-to-RFP relevance data 5950. As indicated by 5942, 5932, and5922, a relevance management system 1140 may also support drill-down(disaggregation), in which an element from a set of aggregated data maybe selected, and more-detailed, expanded data associated with saidselected element may be referenced.

Regarding further disclosure in reference to FIG. 59, analogous to ourdisclosure in reference to FIG. 55, we disclose in reference to FIG. 59that by virtue of the multi-dimensional nature and structure of suchrelevance information (such as we disclose in reference to FIG. 21, FIG.22, and FIG. 54), aggregated relevance results such as shown in FIG. 59(Ref. 5920, 5930, 5940, and 5950), as well as other relevance results,may be determined by alternative embodiments. We contemplate a broadrange of such alternative embodiments, which may include, but are notlimited to, performing aggregation across dimensions other than e.g. PDelement, PD, RFP, or PD owner to achieve similar relevance results, orusing alternate dimensions (or combinations of dimensions) forfiltering, ranking, or aggregating, as we disclose in reference to FIG.22, again to achieve similar relevance results. Those skilled in the artwill recognize that such alternative embodiments for identifying,aggregating, or navigating (as well as filtering or ranking) relevanceinformation may determine similar relevance results, and suchembodiments are intended to be within the scope of the presentinvention.

RFP Relevance Summary Interface with Project Relevance Drill-Down

FIG. 60 generally depicts an RFP relevance summary interface 6010 withproject relevance drill-down, in accordance with an exemplary embodimentof the invention, which may enable an end user to view RFP relevancesummary results, and may be facilitated by a controller module 1142 andan interface module 1143, as illustrated in FIG. 11, which may generateor manage an interface 6010 and application workflow to present resultsto an end user, which may include a relevance chart with drill-downfunctionality.

Regarding functionality of an RFP relevance summary interface 6010, incontrast to an interface 5810 shown previously in FIG. 58 that focusedon a capability-seeking end user 1130, an RFP relevance summaryinterface 6010 may present RFP relevance summary results in a way thatfacilitates, in particular, a capability-providing end user 1110 inidentifying and understanding the RFP requirements of acapability-seeking end user 1130. Here the “perspective” that an RFPrelevance summary interface 6010 provides may be of (possibly multiple)RFPs associated with capability-seeking end users, as said RFPs relateto the experience and capabilities of a capability-providing end user.As such, a capability-providing end user may be provided, by a relevancemanagement system 1140, an overview and interactive, drill-downfunctionality for understanding the technical and teaming requirements(i.e., needs) of one or more potential prime contractors, whose team (orteams) said capability-providing end user may seek to join as asubcontractor.

We further disclose, in reference to an RFP relevance summary interface6010, that said interface may be comprised of sections, such as an RFPrelevance summary section 6020, a project relevance summary section6030, a project relevance detail section 6040, or an RFP relevanceactions section 6050, and that each such section can be considered itsown interface, as can each field within a section.

Regarding an RFP relevance summary section 6020, we disclose that arelevance management system 1140 may provide functionality to constructsaid section by processing aggregated PD-Owner-to-RFP relevance data5950. We illustrate the functionality an RFP relevance summary section6020, using the results of the extended example we have used throughoutthe specification of the present invention. We disclose that an RFPrelevance summary table 6021 would typically have many rows of data,rather than just a single row 6022; the single row results from thesimplified, extended example we have used for presentation in thespecification of the present invention, for which only one RFP (RFP001)has been entered a relevance management system 1140.

FIG. 61 generally depicts an RFP relevance summary section in expandedformat, in accordance with an exemplary embodiment of the invention.Further regarding an RFP relevance summary section 6020, we disclosethat said section may also provide functionality, such as represented byan “Expand” indicator 6027, to expand a summary table 6022, in whichcase a relevance management system 1140 may provide functionality thatenables an RFP relevance summary section 6020 to be updated with alayout such as an alternate RFP relevance summary section 6110 in FIG.61. An end user may be provided a functional ability to “summarize” 6118an expanded table 6111, which may return an end user to an original RFPrelevance summary section 6020.

Regarding functionality of an RFP relevance summary section (Ref. 6020or 6110), said section may provide functionality for an end user toselect an RFP, such as within a table (Ref. 6022 and 6112,respectively), or other suitable display format, for further drill-downexploration; such functionality may be illustrated in an RFP relevancesummary section by a black triangle (“

”) (Ref. 6025 and 6116, respectively), or other suitable indicator (suchas we disclose above in reference to an indicator 4923 in FIG. 49),indicating selection of a corresponding RFP. Such selectionfunctionality may identify an RFP (such as exemplar RFP001, asillustrated in a first selection 6025 and a second selection 6116),which a relevance management system 1140 may use to retrieve a list ofassociated projects. As we disclose in reference to FIG. 49, a relevancemanagement system 1140 may provide functionality to use these projectreferences to generate a corresponding project relevance summaryinterface (such as an interface 6030 in FIG. 60, corresponding to aninterface 4920 in FIG. 49), which here too may contain multiple elementsrelevant to an RFP. These elements may include, but are not limited to,functionality such as a relevance chart with RFP SOW elements 6031 andrelevance chart rows 6032, which may support multiple actions orcombinations of actions that include, but are not limited to,functionality for selection of a project 6033 and a specific SOW element6032, which may be used to provide further drill-down functionality bygenerating a project relevance detail section (such as a section 6040,corresponding to a section 4930 in FIG. 49). Here again an end user mayview substantiation 6043, as evidence that an indicated project mayindeed represent experience for an indicated RFP SOW element (such asillustrated by a first selection 6042 or a second selection 6034).

Regarding a project relevance detail section 6040, said section mayprovide functionality analogous to a project relevance detail section4930 in FIG. 49, and may provide an end user functionality such asrepresented by “View RFP details . . . ” 6044 to view details for aselected SOW element (Ref 6022 and 6034). Such functionality may enablean end user to “trace back” through an RFP SOW element 6031, which mayenable an end user to view, such as in a new RFP SOW element detailinterface 5010 in FIG. 50, an RFP SOW element description, such asoriginally entered in a relevance management system 1140 (Ref 2022).Such functionality may enable an end user to simultaneously position adetailed RFP requirement (such as a first element 5020 or a secondelement 5030 in FIG. 50) for a selected SOW element (such as a firstselection 6034 or a second selection 6042) in close proximity (forexample, side-by-side) with substantiation for same SOW elementrelevance from an original project description (such as a description6043). Using such functionality, an end user may effectively validatethat SOW element experience cited by a PD 6043 is indeed supportive ofor in alignment with a corresponding RFP SOW requirement (Ref 5020 and5030 in FIG. 50).

Regarding functionality such as provided by a project relevance detailsection 6040, such functionality may be extremely convenient or savetime, as a capability-providing end user 1110 may not have seen (or,have immediate access to) a detailed SOW requirement 421 of the RFP 420,such as may be available via functionality to “View RFP details . . . ”6044. Specifically, although RFPs are generally distributed to thecontracting community at large 130, due to the large number of RFPs thatcover a broad range of services, many subcontractors remain unaware ofRFPs for which said subcontractor capabilities may be useful. Instead,it is often a prime contractor 141 who maintains awareness of RFPs andanalyzes them in detail. Thus, the functionality that an RFP relevancesummary interface 6010 may provide for a subcontractor to view adetailed RFP requirement, and compare it with said subcontractor'sexperience, saves time and effectively gives said subcontractor newfoundability that saves said subcontractor time and reduces expense saidsubcontractor may spend locating a viable prime contractor with which tocommunicate regarding potential teaming arrangements.

Regarding an RFP relevance actions section 6050, said section may enablean end user to instruct a relevance management system 1140 to performactions, that may include but are not limited to saving the results 6051of a summary and drill-down for reference at a later time, or forprinting or working with off-line in softcopy as an artifact tofacilitate proposal development 233; contacting an RFP owner 6053 todiscuss and facilitate teaming partnerships, as we disclose in referenceto FIG. 19; as well as further options 6054. In addition, an end usermay have an ability to conclude processing 6055, which may return saidend user to a main menu.

Regarding an RFP relevance summary interface 6010, said interface mayprovide a capability-providing end user 1110 powerful functionality withwhich to identify, navigate, or understand the requirements of primecontractors with which said capability-providing end user maypotentially team 1130. Said functionality may include one or more of thefollowing, such as select from a ranked list of RFPs 6025, drill downinto a list of relevant RFPs 6030 that may include RFP SOW requirements6031, and select from such a list 6032 specific projects 6033 forproject-level detail 6040, including substantiation 6043 at anindividual SOW-element level (Ref. 6034 and 6042), and may enable acapability-providing end user 1110 to identify and vet potential primecontractors 1130 rapidly and efficiently, which may significantly reducethe cost of business development associated with these time-consumingactivities. The functionality that an RFP relevance summary interface6010 may provide to a subcontractor to identify candidate RFPs and primecontractors, and drill down through RFP requirements using one or morerelevance charts to understand how said subcontractor experience andcapabilities may be of value to a prime contractor is extremelypowerful, as it may enable said subcontractor to reach out efficientlyand effectively to said potential prime contractors with concreteevidence of said subcontractor's ability to fill specific requirementsin RFPs, upon which said prime contractor may have expressed interest inbidding.

Processing Multiple PDs and RFPs

A processing module such as depicted in FIG. 20 may providefunctionality to store in a relevance cube 2070 RFP-to-PD relevanceresults that represent relevance of an RFP to a PD. Under control of acontroller module 1142, a processing module as shown in FIG. 20 may beengaged to process PDs and RFPs input into a relevance management system1140 (Ref 2010 and 2012, respectively) to completion. As such, wedisclose that a relevance cube 2070 may effectively contain a Cartesianproduct of PDs and RFPs (Ref. 2010 and 2012, respectively; and Ref 1111and 1131, respectively). For example, a relevance management system 1140my compute and store in a relevance cube 2070 RFP-to-PD relevance forcombinations of PDs and RFPs. A controller module 1142 may providefunctionality to implement a workflow process to “shepherd” each PD andRFP instance through a processing module such as illustrated in FIG. 20,which may use a dataflow architecture, or other architecture, whereprocess inputs (e.g., PDs and RFPs in PD 2031 and RFP 2032 data stores)and intermediate results (e.g., relevance data stores 2045) may bequeued at each processing step, and processing procedures may beexecuted by a controller module 1142 when new or updated inputs arrive.

As an example, when a new PD 2011 is entered into in a relevancemanagement system 1140 (Ref 2021 and 2031), a controller module mayshepherd said new PD instance through the process depicted in FIG. 20 byexecuting direct match processing 2045; importantly, a controller modulemay recognize that a new PD instance may be “run against” each RFPinstance in an RFP data store 2032, and thus may invoke direct matchprocessing 2045 multiple times, using each time as one input said new PDinstance and as a second input an RFP instance in an RFP data store2032. The result may create multiple new RFP-to-PD instances in arelevance data store 2045, which a controller module may furthershepherd, for example through ETL processing transformations 2060 toupdate a relevance cube 2070. As such, a controller module 1142 may keepcurrent the contents of data stores (Ref. 2031, 2032, and 2045) andrelevance cube 2070.

Filtering or Ranking Motivation for Separable and ComplementaryFiltering and Ranking

As we disclose in reference to FIG. 22, the data organization of FIG. 21may enable not only functionality such as hierarchical aggregation 2201,but also functionality such as filtering 2202 or ranking 2203, which wedisclose next.

As we disclose below, a relevance management system 1140 may treatfiltering and ranking as separable and complementary functionality,which may be in contrast to a common practice in data retrieval systemsthat may combine the two and use ranking as a means of “filtering”. Forexample, it is not uncommon for a business-intelligence application toprocess queries that may generate thousands of “hits”, which saidapplication may first rank and then reduce (i.e., “filter”) to a moremanageable number (such as for presentation to an end user) by returningonly e.g. the “top 50” results (or other such reduced number). In such asystem, an end user may need to “tweak” ranking criteria for the dual(and at times, seemingly contradictory) purposes of (1) including onlyresults that are of interest (and excluding results that are not ofinterest), while simultaneously (2) ranking results in increasing orderof interest.

In contrast, by treating filtering and ranking as separable andcomplementary functionality, ranking and filtering such as we discloseherein, may be able to (1) precisely include only results that are ofinterest (and exclude results that are not of interest), whilesimultaneously (2) ranking results in increasing order of interest.

While we disclose filtering and ranking as separable functionality inthe specification of embodiments of the present invention, we alsocontemplate embodiments in which said functionality may be combined, andwhich, for example, may use e.g. ranking to perform “filtering” asdescribed above (e.g., by limiting a number results returned, or othertechniques), with or without the use of separate filtering. Moregenerally, as we disclose in reference to FIG. 22, we recognizehierarchical aggregation 2201, ranking 2202, and filtering 2203 asfunctionality that stems from an underlying data organization (such asprovided in embodiments we disclose in reference to FIG. 21 and FIG.54), and which can be used in combination or separately to performvarious complementary and overlapping functions advantageously, in arelevance management system 1140.

We begin by illustrating several counterintuitive and disadvantageousresults that may arise from using combined filtering and ranking, andhow the use of separable filtering and ranking may overcome such issues.

FIG. 62 (A-C) generally depict exemplar customer descriptors, inaccordance with an exemplary embodiment of the invention.

FIG. 62A illustrates a PD Customer Example (“PCE”), which we refer to asPCE1, and which corresponds to a customer descriptor 3214 previouslyillustrated in FIG. 32. As we disclose in reference to a selection 2641in FIG. 26 and FIG. 27, darkened lines and darkened circles in PCE1illustrate that the PD work was performed for a customer that was oftype Government, Federal within Government, for USDA, and specificallyfor the FSA agency (which is within USDA).

FIG. 62B illustrates an RFP Customer Example (“RCE”), which we refer toas RCE1, and which corresponds to a customer descriptor 3014 previouslyillustrated in FIG. 30. As we disclose in reference to a selection 3141in FIG. 31, darkened lines and darkened circles in RCE1 illustrate thatthe RFP work will be performed for a customer that is of typeGovernment, Federal within Government, for USDA, and specifically forthe RMA agency (which is within USDA).

FIG. 62C illustrates an intersection of PCE1 with RCE1, which we referto as INT1, which is the portion of a customer descriptor where thedarkened lines and darkened circles of PCE1 and RCE1 overlap (i.e.,intersect). Because PCE1 and RCE1 represent root-originated paths withina tree, in this example, the intersection identifies “USDA” as thenearest common ancestor for PCE1 and RCE1. Intuitively, themost-specific customer that both PCE1 and RCE1 have “in common” is USDA,since both projects were performed for this agency (USDA, of the Federalgovernment). Counting the number of darkened nodes in the “requirement”RCE1, we find five. Similarly counting the number of darkened nodes inINT1, we find four. As a result, we may say in this example that therelevance of PCE1 to RCE1, as determined by INT1, equals four divided byfive, or 0.8 (alternatively, 80%). Intuitively, this makes sense—thePCE1 customer was “pretty similar” to the RCE1 customer, as bothcustomers are within the same department (namely the department USDA, inthis case).

FIG. 63 (A-D) generally depict exemplar customer descriptors, inaccordance with an exemplary embodiment of the invention, which disclosecounterintuitive and disadvantageous results that may arise from usingcombined filtering and ranking.

FIG. 63A through FIG. 63D extend the example in FIG. 62 further; in FIG.63A we see that a PD customer example PCE2 is Department of Energy(DOE), also part of the Federal Government, and in FIG. 63B we see thata PD customer example PCE3 is a commercial customer (and thus e.g. notpart of the Federal Government).

FIG. 63C illustrates an intersection of PCE2 with the (same) RFPcustomer requirement RCE1, which may produce in this example a relevancevalue of three divided by five, or 0.6 (60%); and FIG. 63D illustratesthe intersection of PCE3 again with the (same) RFP customer requirementRCE1, producing a relevance value of one divided by five, or 0.2 (20%).Once again, such relevance values seem intuitive and reasonable; a PCE2relevance of 60% is not quite as high as that of PCE1 (at 80%), sincePCE2 and RCE1 had “only” Federal as a nearest common customer (nogreater similarity). Similarly, a PCE3 relevance of 20% is the lowest ofthe three, having only the generic entity “Customer” in common withRCE1.

We disclose that at this point in the example, all of the relevancecomputed values seem reasonable and intuitive, and indeed if we were torank these three PDs strictly on “customer relevance” by such a computedrelevance measure, a ranking order of PCE1, PCE2, and PCE3 appearscorrect (based on relevance values of 80%, 60%, and 20%, respectively).

However, we disclose that if we consider the RCE1 customer example as afilter, using it as a strict requirement to select PDs whose customerexactly “matches” that of RCE1, we encounter an issue: neither PCE1,PCE2, or PCE3 would be selected because none of their customerdescriptors are an exact match. For example, if we use RCE1 as a filterto select exactly those PDs whose customer was also “Government,Federal, USDA, and RMA”, we find no such PDs. Clearly, we need to“broaden” the filter based on RFP customer requirements, to allow PDsthat are “matches” (or perhaps, near matches) through.

FIG. 64 (A-C) generally depict exemplar customer descriptors, inaccordance with an exemplary embodiment of the invention, which furtherdisclose counterintuitive and disadvantageous results that may arisefrom using combined filtering and ranking, and disclose insights on howthe use of separable filtering and ranking may overcome such issues.

FIG. 64A discloses an RFP customer “filter” that may be used to identify(i.e., select) PDs having a specific type of customer. Here the RFPcustomer filter (“RCF”) RCF1 discloses a filter to select any PD whosecustomer is “Government”; intuitively, if we apply such a filter toselect from the set of three PDs in our example, whose customerdescriptors are PCE1, PCE2, and PCE3 (Ref. FIG. 62A, FIG. 63A, and FIG.63B, respectively), only two PDs will be selected, namely PCE1 and PCE2,as both of these customer descriptors included “Government”. (PCE3 willnot be selected, as its customer descriptor does not include“Government”.)

FIG. 64B discloses INT4, an intersection of RCF1 and PCE1, whichcontains two darkened nodes; similarly, FIG. 64C discloses INT5, anintersection of RCF1 and PCE2, which also contains two darkened nodes.If we compute the relevance of PCE1 to RCF1, both of which have twodarkened nodes, as before using INT4, the result is two divided by two,or 1.0 (100%); and similarly, the relevance of PCE2 to RCF1 is alsocomputed using INT5 as two divided by two, or 1.0 (100%). Previously,these relevance values for PCE1 and PCE2 had been 80% and 60%,respectively, indicating that PCE1 seemed a “better match” than PCE2 forthe customer RFP requirements; in contrast, the values just computed(i.e., 100% and 100%) would seem to indicate that PCE1 and PCE2 are bothnow equally “good matches” for the customer RFP requirements.

We disclose that if we instead alter our computation for relevance anduse as a denominator a value of five (representing the number ofdarkened nodes in the original RFP requirement RCE1), the resultingrelevance values for INT4 (Ref. FIG. 64B) an INT5 (Ref. FIG. 64C) areboth two divided by five, or 0.4 (40%). Here again, the previouslydifferent relevance values for PCE1 and PCE2 (80% and 60%, respectively)are now represented by the same value (namely, 40% and 40%,respectively) and again both PCE1 and PCE2 now appear equally “goodmatches” for the customer RFP requirement.

In either case, it appears that as we have broadened our filtering, wehave lost a level of “fidelity” in determining relevance, which may beused for ranking. We recognize that the RCF1 filter may in fact be ofvalue in determining ranking, if that is what an end user intends—forexample, if an end user wishes to use the RCF1 filter to indicate that“a PD performed for any Government customer is equally relevant”, thenthe equivalent relevance values computed for PCE1 an PCE2 of e.g. 100%(or alternatively, both 40%) are indeed proper relevance ranking values.However, if an end user instead wishes to restrict the selected PDs toonly those with a “Government” customer, but also to rank the selectedcustomers by closeness of match to the original requirements (e.g.,“Government, Federal, USDA, and RMA”), the use of a combined (i.e.,single) set of criteria for both filtering and ranking may givelow-fidelity results, with projects whose customers are (intuitively)better matches not being ranked more favorably.

FIG. 65 generally depict a summary of the effect of RFP criteriahierarchy on filtering and ranking processes, in accordance with anexemplary embodiment of the invention. We disclose in reference to FIG.65 a summary of the unexpected results illustrated in the previousexamples; here we consider the two process steps (filtering andranking), and the effect of the depth of the RFP criteria hierarchy,where e.g. RCE1 (Ref. FIG. 62B) illustrates a “deep” RFP criteriahierarchy and RCF1 (Ref. FIG. 64A) illustrates a “shallow” RFP criteriahierarchy, as relative to RCE1 (Ref. FIG. 62B). Intuitively, we disclosethat it may be advantageous when filtering to use a shallow RFP criteriahierarchy, to broaden a search and let a relevance management system1140 select and present to an end user a larger number of potentiallyrelevant projects. However, as we saw in reference to FIG. 64B and FIG.64C, the ranking values that resulted from using such shallow RFPcriteria hierarchy had low fidelity, and thus may perform poorly. Toimprove ranking fidelity, we disclose that a deep RFP hierarchy resultedin the intuitively correct rankings of PCE1, PCE2, and PCE3 (at 80%,60%, and 20%, respectively), and thus may perform better.

FIG. 66 generally depict a structure for filtering and ranking processesand criteria, in accordance with an exemplary embodiment of theinvention. Drawing insight from the summary depicted in FIG. 65, wedisclose that rather than combining filtering and ranking processes, orrequiring they use the same RFP criteria hierarchies (i.e., both use ashallow hierarchy, or both use a deep hierarchy), we may provideseparable and complementary filtering 6620 and ranking 6630 processes,as illustrated in FIG. 66, which may use separate filtering 6615 andrank 6625 weighting criteria, respectively. Such separation may enable arelevance management system 1140 to select, from a relevance cube 2070,cube data 6610 that may be filtered 6620 using a set of filteringcriteria 6615, and ranked 6630 using a second set of rank weightingcriteria 6625, with the results then aggregated 6640, such as forpresentation to an user. As a result of a structure such as we disclosein reference to FIG. 66, we may provide full support for filtering(ranging from broad to narrow) while simultaneously providing supportfor high-fidelity ranking. We further disclose that such functionalitymay be applied generally; for example, separable and complementaryfiltering and ranking may be supported across any element of a ProjectDescriptor (e.g., Level 4 in FIG. 21), not simply “customer” descriptoras used here as an exemplar.

Representing and Computing Descriptor Overlays

In FIG. 67, FIG. 71, FIG. 74, FIG. 76, and FIG. 78 we present pseudocode for embodiments of procedures that may provide functionality totransform data in a relevance management system 1140 to supportfiltering or ranking. Those skilled in the art will recognize that asdata is transformed and processed by a relevance management system 1140,such as during ETL processing, capability determination processing, andRFP relevance determination processing (Ref 2060, 2080, and 2085 in FIG.20), that various ways of representing and structuring said data may bebeneficial to facilitate transformations or processing. In order toclarify presentation of the procedures for filtering and ranking, it maybe advantageous to represent Level 4 hierarchical or other suchdescriptors, such as represent exemplars customer, contract type,security classification, line of business, special businessclassification, or relevant achievement 2102 as map data structures.

FIG. 67 generally depicts pseudo-code for a procedureCreate_Descriptor_Map( ) that we disclose, in accordance with anexemplary embodiment of the invention, that a relevance managementsystem 1140 may use to create a map from a descriptor.

FIG. 68 generally depicts an exemplar generalized descriptor, inaccordance with an exemplary embodiment of the invention, which containsten nodes, D1 through D10.

FIG. 69 (A-B) generally depict exemplar PD descriptors, in accordancewith an exemplary embodiment of the invention, that are based on anexemplar generalized descriptor as we disclose in reference to FIG. 68.

We disclose the operation and functionality procedure of a procedureCreate_Descriptor_Map( ) as depicted in FIG. 67. Using the generalizeddescriptor we disclose in reference to FIG. 68 as a reference, wedisclose in reference to FIG. 69A an example descriptor instance that werefer to as PD1, which contains three nodes D1, D2, and D3, representedby three darkened circles. (The descriptor in FIG. 69A is meant to be ageneralized version of descriptors such as FIG. 62A, FIG. 62B, FIG. 62C,and so on.) We disclose that if we provide the project descriptordepicted in FIG. 69A as input Desc to the procedureCreate_Discriptor_Map( ) depicted in FIG. 67, said procedure begins bycreating an empty map instance M. Then, using a depth first traversal ofthe nodes in descriptor Desc, said procedure sequentially adds to map Mthe entries D1=1, D2=1, and D3=1, where the D1, D2, and D3 representkeys in the Map, and the values assigned to each (each having the samevalue of 1, in this exemplary case) are the corresponding values in thenoted key/value pairs. Our example and pseudo-code use a value of “1” toindicate the presence of a node; we anticipate additional embodimentsthat indicate node presence in alternative ways. The output map 69A2produced by Create_Descriptor_Map( ) for the descriptor in this exampleis shown in FIG. 69, and corresponds to the map PD1, which we denote asPD1={D1=1, D2=1, D3=1}. We can use procedure Create_Descriptor_Map( ) toprocess the project descriptor in FIG. 69B, which we refer to as PD2, toproduce an analogous map, PD2={D1=1, D5=1, and D7=1}. In anticipation oftheir use below, we have purposely named PD1 and PD2 to include “PD” intheir name, for we will use them to represent components of a PD.

Further regarding procedure Create_Descriptor_Map( ) as depicted in FIG.67, we disclose that in a manner similar to that illustrated for FIG.69A and FIG. 69B, we may use said procedure to process the “RFP”descriptor components shown in FIG. 70A, FIG. 70B, and FIG. 70C, toproduce the following three map outputs: RFP1={D1=1, D2=1}, RFP2={D1=1,D5=1, D6=1}, and RFP3={D1=1, D8=1}.

Regarding an alternative embodiment of procedure Create_Descriptor_Map() as depicted in FIG. 67, in a tag-based alternative embodiment, such aswe disclose below in reference to FIG. 121A and FIG. 121B, suchtransformation to a map format may be performed in a variety of way,including but not limited to an analogous but alternative embodiment ofprocedure Create_Descriptor_Map( ) (Ref. FIG. 67) that may enumerate thetag nodes in a set comprising a tag-based embodiment, identifying as Lthe label associated with each enumerated tag node, and analogouslyadding to M the key/value pair L, “1” for each said enumerated element,in this example.

FIG. 71 generally depicts pseudo-code for a procedureOverlay_Descriptors( ) that we disclose, in accordance with an exemplaryembodiment of the invention, that a relevance management system 1140 mayuse to “overlay” a first descriptor onto a second descriptor. Wedisclose that said procedure takes three arguments: a first argumentDesc1 represents a descriptor in map format; a second argument Desc2represents a descriptor also in map format; and a variable namedAnd_Or_Flag that may take the values of “AND” or “OR”. Intuitively,procedure Overlay_Descriptor( ) produces as output a new descriptor M(also in map format) that represents the union of Desc1 and Desc2 (i.e.,the overlay of Desc2 onto Desc1), with two cases, “additive” asindicated by an “AND” flag, and “non-additive” as indicated by an “OR”flag. Intuitively, we disclose that the additive case may be thought ofas applying an addition operation for nodes, whereas the non-additivecase may be thought of as applying a logical-OR operation for nodes.Further, regarding the use of the “AND” or “OR” flag when combining(i.e., overlaying) descriptors, we disclose that the “AND” case may beuseful for representing a case where a condition in both descriptorcomponents must be satisfied to constitute a match, and the “OR” caseuseful where a condition in either descriptor may be satisfied toconstitute a match.

FIG. 72 (A-B) generally depict exemplar execution of procedureOverlay_Descriptors( ) depicted in FIG. 71, in accordance with anexemplary embodiment of the invention, using PD1 and PD2 as inputs, with“AND” and “OR” as inputs.

FIG. 72A discloses the operation of procedure Overlay_Descriptors( )such as when applied to the PD1 and PD2 instances (Ref. FIG. 69A andFIG. 69B, respectively) with an “AND” flag. In this example, we disclosethat the node that overlapped in PD1 and PD2 (i.e., the node D1) has avalue of D1=2 in the final resulting map for PD3 72A2, while D2, D3, D5,and D7 each have a value of 1. FIG. 72B discloses the operation ofprocedure Overlay_Descriptors( ) with the same inputs PD1 and PD2, butwith the “OR” flag; in the final resulting map for PD4, all entries D1,D2, D3, D5, and D7 have a value of 1.

FIG. 73 (A-B) generally depict exemplar execution of procedureOverlay_Descriptors( ) depicted in FIG. 71, in accordance with anexemplary embodiment of the invention, using RFP1, RFP2, and RFP3 asinputs, with “AND” and “OR” as inputs.

FIG. 73A discloses analogous operation of a procedureOverlay_Descriptors( ) when applied to the RFP1, RFP2, and RFP3instances (Ref. FIG. 70A, FIG. 70B, and FIG. 70C, respectively), alsousing an “AND” flag. In this example, we disclose that we first computethe result for Overlay_Descriptors( ) with inputs RFP2 and RFP3, theresult of which is passed as an argument to a second invocation ofOverlay_Descriptors( ) along with the argument RFP1 and an instance ofan “AND” flag. As expected, we disclose that the single node D1 that iscommon to all three RFP descriptors (RFP1, RFP2, and RFP3) is assigned avalue of D1=3 in the final resulting map for RFP4. FIG. 73B disclosesthe operation of a procedure Overlay_Descriptors( ) with the same inputsRFP1, RFP2, and RFP3, but with an “OR” flag; in the final resulting mapfor RFP5, all entries D1, D2, D5, D6, and D8 have a value of 1.

Computing Descriptor Intersection

FIG. 74 generally depicts pseudo-code for a procedureDetermine_Descriptor_Intersection( ) that we disclose, in accordancewith an exemplary embodiment of the invention, which providesfunctionality a relevance management system 1140 may use to create a mapthat represents a degree of match (i.e., intersection between) betweentwo descriptor instances in map format, which may be provided to saidprocedure as inputs named Desc1 and Desc2. Said procedure first createsan enumeration of the keys in input Desc2 (which will be used foriteration), and an empty map M that will be used to representintersection results. Said procedure next iterates through the Desc2 keyenumeration, identifying those keys that have corresponding entries inmap Desc1 (i.e., intersect with Desc1). We disclose that to determinethe degree of intersection, said procedure determines the minimum of thevalues of Desc1 and Desc2 for the given key, and adds the resultingkey/value pair to the map M.

FIG. 75 generally depicts an exemplar execution of procedureDetermine_Descriptor_Intersection( ) depicted in FIG. 74, in accordancewith an exemplary embodiment of the invention, using PD3 and RFP4 asinputs. The operation of said procedure is illustrated by a call to saidprocedure with two arguments, a first being PD3 72A2 and a second beingRFP4 73A2, which produces as output INT6 7502. Intuitively, thisintersection as illustrated in FIG. 75 represents the degree ofcommonality between the PD instance (PD3) and the RFP instance (RFP4).We disclose that a descriptor intersection map, such as produced byprocedure Determine_Descriptor_Intersection( ) depicted in FIG. 74, andillustrated by an exemplar result in FIG. 75, may be used to computefurther items that may be used in subsequent ranking and filtering,which we disclose next.

Computing Weighted Relevance

FIG. 76 generally depicts pseudo-code for a procedureCompute_Weighted_Relevance_Value( ) that we disclose, in accordance withan exemplary embodiment of the invention, which provides functionalityto compute a weighted relevance value for an intersection descriptormap. Said procedure may take as input three arguments: a descriptorintersection map M, such as produced byDetermine_Descriptor_Intersection( ) (Ref. FIG. 74); the descriptor mapDesc2 that was used as a second argument toDetermine_Descriptor_Intersection( ) that produced said map M; and aweighting map W, which contains relative weightings to be applied toDesc2 elements when computing a weighted relevance value.

FIG. 77 generally depicts an exemplar weighting map, in accordance withan exemplary embodiment of the invention, which may be used as input toprocedure Compute_Weighted_Relevance( ) depicted in FIG. 76.

To facilitate explanation of procedure Compute_Weighted_Relevance_Value() depicted in FIG. 76, we use as input arguments to said procedure adescriptor intersection map INT6 depicted in FIG. 75 as the firstargument M, a descriptor RFP4 depicted in FIG. 73A as a second argumentDesc2, and a weighting map 7701 depicted in FIG. 77 as a third argumentW. Intuitively, we disclose that said procedure computes two sums, Sum1and Sum2, and then the value of Sum1 divided by Sum2, which saidprocedure returns as its result. Sum1 represents a sum of the values ofthe nodes in the intersection map M, where each value in said sum isweighted by its corresponding entry in map W 7701; thus Sum1 representsthe weighted sum of the “match” represented by a descriptor intersectionmap M. We disclose that Sum2 may be computed in an analogous way, as thesum of the values of the nodes of Desc2 descriptor (which represents theRFP requirements), where each value in said sum is also weighted by itscorresponding entry in map W 7701; thus Sum2 represents the weighted sumof the “RFP requirements” represented by a descriptor map Desc2. In thisexample, Sum1 is computed (using a value 7502 from FIG. 75 and a value7701 from FIG. 77) as 2 times 1.0 (for enumeration element D1), plus 1times 1.0 (for D2), plus 1 times 1.0 (for D5), which equals 4.0.Similarly, Sum2 is computed (using a value 73A2 from FIG. 73 and a value7701 from FIG. 77) as 3 times 1.0 (for D1), plus 1 times 1.0 (for D2),plus 1 times 1.0 (for D5), plus 1 times 1.0 (for D6), plus 1 times 1.0(for D8), which equals 7.0. Dividing Sum1 by Sum2 results in 4.0/7.0, orapproximately 0.57 (57%) for a weighted value, which the procedurereturns. Intuitively, the procedure has rated PD3 as being 57% similar(or having a match value of 57%) with respect to RFP4.

Regarding the functionality and operation of procedureCompute_Weighted_Relevance_Value( ) as depicted in FIG. 76, saidprocedure discloses the use of a linear, weighted sums to compute Sum1and Sum2, and computing a returned relevance value as a fraction (e.g.,percentage) of Sum1 with respect to Sum2 (i.e., Sum1 divided by Sum2).We disclose that such a relatively simple and intuitive computationrepresents just one of many embodiments we contemplate for computing aweighted relevance value of project descriptor instances (e.g., PDs andRFPs). We contemplate alternative embodiments ofCompute_Weighted_Relevance_Value( ) in which summations are notnecessarily linear (e.g., node weights may be adjusted by linear ornon-linear functions, such as distance or distance-squared from rootnode), and a relevance value may be computed by functions other thandivision (e.g. other than Sum1 divided by Sum2). Those skilled in theart will recognize the large degree of flexibility inherent in computingrelevance of one descriptor to another, and that the overlay,intersection, summation and division techniques that we disclose inreference to FIG. 71, FIG. 74, and FIG. 76 may be modified and adjusted,and that such embodiments are intended to be within the scope of thepresent invention.

Creating Filter Tables

FIG. 78 generally depicts pseudo-code for a procedureCreate_Filter_Table_From_Map( ) that we disclose, in accordance with anexemplary embodiment of the invention, which provides functionality tocreate filter tables. Said procedure may be used by a relevancemanagement system 1140 to create a tabular structure for filtering basedon a descriptor intersection map, which may be used during ETLprocessing 2060. Said procedure takes as input two arguments, adescriptor intersection map M, such as produced byDetermine_Descriptor_Intersection( ) (Ref. FIG. 74), and a descriptormap Desc2 that was used as a second argument toDetermine_Descriptor_Intersection( ) that produced said map M.

FIG. 79 generally depicts an exemplar execution of procedureCreate_Filter_Table_From_Map( ), in accordance with an exemplaryembodiment of the invention, using as input the descriptor intersectionmap INT6 input as depicted in FIG. 75. ProcedureCreate_Filter_Table_From_Map( ), as depicted in FIG. 78, begins bycreating a new table T whose columns are labeled with the keys of Desc2.This is illustrated in FIG. 79, in which we use as input M thedescriptor intersection map INT6 7502, and the descriptor map Desc2 thatcorresponds to RFP4 73A2. The headings 7910 in the table are thus D1,D2, D5, D6, and D8, which correspond to the keys of RFP4 73A2. Saidprocedure next creates an enumeration of the keys in Desc2 foriteration, which said procedure uses to test for presence in thedescriptor intersection map M. Intuitively, said procedure isdetermining whether, for each column entry in the table 7910, theintersection map contains a corresponding value. If Map M contains avalue for the indicated key, that value is added to the table in thecorresponding column. For example, on the iteration for key D1, theprocedure determines that map M 7502 indeed contains an entry for D1,whose value is 2, and updates column D1 in the table 7901 with a valueof 2. The remaining columns in the table 7910 may be populated in asimilar manner. At the conclusion of processing, procedureCreate_Filter_Table_From_Map( ), as depicted in FIG. 78, returns anupdated table T, whose column headings correspond to keys of the Desc2input, and whose values under said headings contain the correspondingvalues (if they exist) from descriptor intersection map M.

Regarding further functionality as disclosed in reference to FIG. 79,rows in a table such as depicted in FIG. 79 may be concatenated withtheir corresponding entries in a relevance cube 2070, to enablefiltering by e.g. columns. Using as an example the data illustrated inFIG. 79, a relevance management system 1140 may use such a filter tableto select rows, for example, in which column D1 contains a non-zerovalue (which is true, here). Intuitively, columns in a filter tableenable us to specify criteria (e.g., D1 must be non-zero, or D6 must benon-zero, and so on) to determine whether a corresponding PD associatedwith such filter (here, PD3 FIG. 72A) matches said criteria, and shouldbe selected for inclusion in a results set. (Examining PD3 in FIG. 72A,if an end user specifies that D1 must be non-zero, PD3 would be selectedfor inclusion; alternatively, if an end user specifies that D6 must benon-zero, PD3 would not be selected.)

Entering Multiple Overlapping Descriptors

FIG. 80 generally depicts a multiple-entry interface 8010, in accordancewith an exemplary embodiment of the invention, which may be used forentering multiple overlapping descriptors.

FIG. 81 generally depicts a multiple-entry interface 8110 duringexemplary execution, in accordance with an exemplary embodiment of theinvention.

FIG. 82 (A-C) generally depict exemplar customer descriptors and anexemplar execution of procedure Overlay_Descriptors( ) depicted in FIG.71, in accordance with an exemplary embodiment of the invention, usingas input said exemplar customer descriptors, and an “AND” input.

We disclose that various data entry and interface embodiments mayprovide functionality to support the entry of multiple values (Ref.2642, 2824, 3142, 9133, and 9227), such as for a given descriptor. Whensuch functionality is exercised, a relevance management system 1140 maypresent an end user with functionality such as a multiple-entryinterface 8010 depicted in FIG. 80, which we illustrate by example for acustomer field 8020, which may be associated with a customer descriptor.We can see in FIG. 80 that an end user has made a selection of “USDA”8021, which corresponds to a descriptor shown in FIG. 82A, and that theend user is also provided a option, such as represented by “Add another. . . ” 8022, to add another customer descriptor entry. If functionalitysuch as represented by an “Add another . . . ” option 8022 is exercised,a relevance management system 1140 may provide functionality to updatethe multiple-entry interface 8020, such as illustrated by amultiple-entry interface 8120 in FIG. 81. An end user may be presentedwith a second data entry element 8124, which may be associated with afirst data entry element 8121 by an operator-selection option 8123. Herewe can see in FIG. 81 that an end user has made a second selection of“DOE” 8124, which corresponds to a descriptor shown in FIG. 82B, and hasselected an “AND” operator 8123, which a relevance management system1140 may use to construct a resulting composite descriptor as shown inFIG. 82C, as follows. Because an end user indicated an “AND” operation8123, a relevance management system 1140 exercises procedureOverlay_Descriptors( ) (Ref. FIG. 71) using an “AND” flag. Note that thecommonality between a first and a second descriptors (Ref. FIG. 82A andFIG. 82B, respectively), namely the overlap between the ANY, GOV., andFED. nodes, has resulted in the procedure Overlay_Descriptors( ) (Ref.FIG. 71) assigning these three nodes a value of 2 in a resultingcomposite descriptor (Ref. FIG. 82C), and assigning other nodes a valueof 1. An end user may be provided functionality by a relevancemanagement system 1140 to save information (Ref 8031 and 8131) or cancelthe operation (Ref. 8032 and 8132), and in either case a relevancemanagement system 1140 may return an end user to an interface from whicha multiple-entry interface (Ref. 8010, or 8110) was invoked.

Regarding further functionality we disclose in reference to FIG. 80 andFIG. 81, we disclose that an interface such as shown in FIG. 81illustrates a relatively simple case in which two or more descriptorcomponents (Ref 8121 and 8122) may be combined with one another, with aselectable operator (such as a selection 8123) between components. Wecontemplate a broad range of alternative embodiments, including, but notlimited to, an embodiment in which an end user may specify more complexoperations, such as nesting to enforce operator precedence betweenaggregate components and negation (i.e., a “NOT” operator), which arelevance management system 1140 may then perform. For example, suchalternative embodiments may process user input such as “(FSA OR RMA) ANDDOE”, and operations that include a “NOT” operator. Those skilled in theart will recognize that alternative embodiments that provide suchmore-advanced logical operations follow directly from the specificationof the present invention, and that such embodiments are intended to bewithin the scope of the present invention.

Creating Filtering or Ranking Structures

In FIG. 83 through FIG. 86 we return to the extended example, describingin further detail how functionality such as provided by procedureembodiments in FIG. 67, FIG. 71, FIG. 74, FIG. 76, and FIG. 78 may beused by a relevance management system 1140 to transform data in arelevance management system 1140, such as via ETL processing 2060, tosupport filtering or ranking.

FIG. 83 (A-C) generally depict exemplar customer descriptors and anexemplar execution of procedure Determine_Descriptor_Intersection( )depicted in FIG. 74, in accordance with an exemplary embodiment of theinvention, using as input said exemplar customer descriptors. FIG. 83Ashows the PD customer descriptor (Ref 2514 and 2710) shown previously inFIG. 25 and FIG. 27, which we refer to here as PCE1. As part of a datatransformation that may be performed during ETL processing 2060, labelsof descriptor nodes may be updated, for example to facilitate filteringand ranking when a relevance management system 1140 interacts with anend user. As an example, we can see in FIG. 27, that the top-levelselection 2711 for a customer descriptor was specified as “N/A” (shortfor “Not Available”) during data entry, which has been replaced by “Any”in FIG. 83A. As we disclose below, a relevance management system 1140may perform such relabeling, such as of a top-most node in this case, togenerate a more user-friendly set of selections; for example, when auser needs to specify criteria to use for e.g. matching customers, atop-level (i.e., broadest) category may now conveniently be labeled“Any”. For presentation in the specification of the present invention,we have also updated several other labels with shorter abbreviations;for example, the label “Government” has been shortened to “Gov.”, and“Federal” has been shortened to “Fed.” FIG. 83B shows the RFP customerdescriptor 3214 shown previously in FIG. 32, which we refer to here asRCE1; here too, several of the labels have been updated, analogously tothose in FIG. 83A. FIG. 83C illustrates INT7, the intersection of PCE1and RCE1 (Ref. FIGS. 83A and 83B, respectively) produced byProduce_Descriptor_Intersection( ) (Ref. FIG. 74).

FIG. 84 generally depicts an exemplar execution of procedureCreate_Filter_Table_From_Map( ) depicted in FIG. 78, in accordance withan exemplary embodiment of the invention. FIG. 84 depicts the resultproduced by Create_Filter_Table_From_Map( ) (Ref. FIG. 78) when appliedto the result INT7 83C2 in FIG. 83C. Intuitively, we can see that thenodes labels from the RFP customer descriptor in FIG. 82B (i.e., Any,Gov., Fed., USDA, and RMA) form the column headings in FIG. 84 (Ref.8401, 8402, 8403, 8404, and 8405, respectively), and that a non-zerovalue (such as “1”) appears in those columns that correspond to non-zeronodes in the descriptor intersection map in FIG. 83C (Ref. columns 8401,8402, 8403, and 8404 in FIG. 84, respectively). Thus if we were toselect based on a non-zero value for “RMA” using such a filter (Ref.FIG. 84), a relevance management system 1140 would not select PCE1 (Ref.FIG. 83A); whereas if we were to select based on a non-zero value for“Any”, “Gov.”, “Fed.”, or “USDA”, a relevance management system 1140would select PCE1 (Ref. FIG. 83A).

FIG. 85 generally depicts exemplar customer descriptor information forRFP and PDs, in accordance with an exemplary embodiment of theinvention. FIG. 85 illustrates further examples of customer descriptordata, showing first in row 8503 the RFP example RCE1, also shown in FIG.82B, whose Project Descriptor identifier (i.e., RFP ID) is “RFP001”. Theremaining five rows in the table 8504 show example customer descriptordata for five PDs, having Project Descriptor PD IDs 8501 of PD001through PD005. Note that the example for PD001 corresponds to PCE1, asillustrated in FIG. 82A.

FIG. 86 generally depicts an exemplar execution of procedureCreate_Filter_Table_From_Map( ) depicted in FIG. 78, in accordance withan exemplary embodiment of the invention, using multiple customerdescriptor inputs. FIG. 86 illustrates customer descriptor data thatcorresponds to five rows 8504 of FIG. 85 as processed by theProduce_Descriptor_Intersection( ) (Ref. FIG. 74) andCreate_Filter_Table_From_Map( ) (Ref. FIG. 78), analogous to theprocessing that produced FIG. 84. In fact, a row 8621 in FIG. 86corresponds to the single row of FIG. 84, as that single row representsthe processing of PD001. In FIG. 86 we illustrate an additional column8606 for PD ID, which identifies the associated PD.

FIG. 87 generally depicts an exemplar updating of a relevance cube tablefor customer filters and customer relevance, in accordance with anexemplary embodiment of the invention. FIG. 87 continues the extendedexample, illustrating how as part of ETL processing 2060, the resultsfrom Compute_Weighted_Relevance_Value( ) (Ref. FIG. 76) andCreate_Filter_Table_From_Map( ) (Ref. FIG. 78) may be associated withaggregated relevance results (e.g., FIG. 48) in a relevance cube 2070,such as may be produced by functionality of procedureDetermine_Relevance_Matrix( ) (Ref. FIG. 35), Build_Relevance_Table( )(Ref. FIG. 38), Roll_Up_By_PD( ) (Ref. FIG. 40), and Roll_Up_By_RFP( )(Ref. FIG. 46). For clarity we disclose that columns (Ref. 8703, 8704,and 8705) correspond to the extended example data as illustrated in FIG.48; and that columns 8702 in FIG. 87 corresponds to columns (Ref. 8601,8602, 8603, 8603, and 8605) in FIG. 86, with a column 8606 denoting PDID in FIG. 86, enabling the rows in FIG. 86 to be associated with theircorresponding rows in FIG. 87, based on the PD ID 8705.

Regarding further disclosure in reference to FIG. 87, we disclose that anew column, for Customer Relevance 8701 has been added to the tableshown in FIG. 87, which is computed in the exemplar for the rows with PDID equal to PD002 through PD005 8705 using a procedure such as ComputeWeighted Relevance Value( )(Ref. FIG. 76) in a manner analogous to thatused to compute the value of 0.8 (80%) for PD001, as illustrated inreference to FIG. 62A, FIG. 62B, and FIG. 62C.

Period of Performance (PoP) Filtering

FIG. 88 generally depicts an exemplar construction process for PoP datefilters, in accordance with an exemplary embodiment of the invention,disclosing filter construction for a range descriptor. FIG. 88 disclosesthe creation of two additional columns of data, such as PD PoP Start8801 and PD Pop End 8802, associated with each of the PDs 8803. Such atable may constructed by a relevance management system 1140 bypopulating, for each PD, columns such as a PoP Start and a PoP End datecolumn (Ref. 8801 and 8802, respectively) with the corresponding data,such as PoP start and end date values 2620 recorded during a PD dataentry process 2021.

FIG. 89 generally depicts an exemplar updating of relevance cube tablefor PoP date filters, in accordance with an exemplary embodiment of theinvention, further disclosing filter construction for a rangedescriptor. FIG. 89 discloses how columns, such as representing PD PoPStart and PD PoP End (Ref. 8801 and 8802, respectively) associated witha PD ID 8803, may be associated with the corresponding data in arelevance cube 2070, as illustrated by the data in FIG. 87. In FIG. 89we can see the addition of the two columns (Ref. 8901 and 8902), whichhave been added to the table through the PD ID (Ref 8803 and 8907). Forpresentation in FIG. 89, due primarily to the width of the table, wehave omitted columns for PD Owner and RFP Owner, shown previously in acollection of columns 8705, without loss of clarity.

Filtering or Ranking Using Criteria from an End User

FIG. 91, FIG. 92, and FIG. 93 generally depict contract criteriainterfaces (Ref 9110, 9210, and 9310, respectively) for filtering orranking, in accordance with an exemplary embodiment of the invention.The interfaces we disclose in reference to in FIG. 91, FIG. 92, and FIG.93 may contain similarities to interfaces disclosed above for PD and RFPdata entry (Ref. FIG. 26, FIG. 28, and FIG. 29; and FIG. 31,respectively). Indeed, we disclose that such similarity may be expectedand advantageous, as the filtering or ranking a relevance managementsystem 1140 may perform may use similar elements (e.g., exemplar such asPoP Start and End dates, customer type, work elements, and so on, in anembodiment) to perform said filtering or ranking. FIG. 91, FIG. 92, FIG.93, and FIG. 94 illustrate interfaces in which a controller module 1142and an interface module 1143 provide the necessary interfaces andapplication logic for filtering and ranking processes.

A contract criteria interface (Ref 9110, 9210, or 9310) may contain asection where a user may specify the intended purpose of the interface,for example whether an interface is intended to represent data forfiltering, or for ranking. Such functionality is illustrated in aninterface 9110 by a first section 9112 and a second section 9113; theselections for a first selector 9112 and a second selector 9113 areintended to apply to a first interface 9210, or a second interface 9310as well, although we contemplate an embodiment variation in which otherinterfaces, such as said first interface 9210, or said second interface9310, may also have analogous sections associated directly with theirsaid interfaces.

As we disclose in reference to FIG. 22 and FIG. 66, a relevancemanagement system 1140 may include separable and complementaryfunctionality for filtering and ranking (Ref 6620 and 6615; and 6630 and6625, respectively). FIG. 91, FIG. 92, and FIG. 93 illustrate interfacesthat provide functionality that enable a relevance management system1140 to receive, from an end user, values for contract criteria 9111that a relevance management system 1140 may use for filters 9112, andvalues said system may use for ranking 9112. Because filtering andranking criteria may be related to the same, or similar, set of dataelements (e.g., PoP Start and End dates, customer type, work elements,and so on, in an embodiment), we disclose in reference to FIG. 91 aninterface that provides functionality that enables an end user to“toggle”, such as via a selector 9112, between value settings forcontract criteria to be used as filters, and value settings to be usedfor ranking. We disclose that a relevance management system 1140 maythus record two sets of values, a first to be used for filtering and asecond to be used for ranking, which an end user may toggle between viaa selector 9112 to enter, review, or update.

Regarding further functionality we disclose in reference to FIG. 91,FIG. 92, and FIG. 93, a relevance management system 1140 may providefunctionality such as additional options that may affect how suchtoggling operates; for example, said system may present an end user withoptions, such as may be mutually exclusive options, one of which may beselected, as illustrated in a selector 9113. One such option may enablean end user to specify that the original RFP data values associated withan RFP, such as entered during an RFP data entry process 2022, be usedto “populate” various ranking criteria. Such functionality may includesetting an exemplar such as a PoP date range 9121, customer 9131, orother criteria to values that were entered during an RFP data entryprocess 2022 using e.g. a first data-input section 3120 or a seconddata-input section 3141, respectively.

Further regarding a selector 9113, an end user may be presented withfunctionality such as an additional option from which to select 9113,such as an option to use custom filter or ranking criteria, indicatingthat criteria values a relevance management system 1140 records when“filters” is selected 9112 may be maintained separately from criteriavalues said system records when “ranking” is selected 9112. In such amode, a selector 9112 may enable an end user to toggle between twodistinct sets of criteria values, one for filtering and one for ranking.

Further regarding a selector 9113, a further option an end user may beable to select 9113 is to use a common set of values for filter and rankcriteria. In such a mode, a relevance management system 1140 maymaintain a single set of criteria values, which may be used for bothfiltering and ranking.

Regarding a selector such as 9112, an option selected via functionalitysuch as a selector 9112, i.e. “Filters” or “Ranking”, may affectfunctionality such as which of the data entry elements on contractcriteria interfaces (such as a first interface 9110 in FIG. 91, a secondinterface 9210 in FIG. 92, or a third interface 9310 in FIG. 93) areenabled or disabled (i.e., through which an end user may enter data, ormay be prohibited from entering data). Generally speaking, the purposeof the functionality provided by contract criteria interfaces (such assaid first interface 9110 in FIG. 91, said second interface 9210 in FIG.92, or said third interface 9310 in FIG. 93) when “Filters” has beenselected 9112 is for an end user to specify criteria that must be met inorder to constitute a “match” with a PD (i.e., for that PD to beselected from a relevance cube 2070). Thus, for example, values forexemplars such as a PoP date range 9121, value range 9123, customer(Ref. 9131 and 9132), or work elements 9143 may be specified by an enduser (and similarly as illustrated in FIG. 92, for contract type 9221,security classification 9223, line of business 9225, or special businessclassifications 9231; and also in FIG. 93, for customer testimonial 9320or quantified benefits 9330).

On the other hand, the purpose of the functionality of contract criteriainterface (such as a first interface 9110 in FIG. 91, a second interface9210 in FIG. 92, or a third interface 9310 in FIG. 93) when “Ranking”has been selected 9112 is for an end user to specify “weights” that arelevance management system 1140 may use when determining the relativeimportance of various criteria. Thus, when a selector 9112 is set to“Ranking”, the various data-entry elements and fields on the contractcriteria interfaces (such as said first interface 9110 in FIG. 91, saidsecond interface 9210 in FIG. 92, or said third interface 9310 in FIG.93) that permit “Weight” values to be entered may be enabled, and may bedisabled otherwise. These data entry elements and fields may include,but are not limited to, functionality such as provided by exemplary dataentry elements and fields (Ref 9122, 9124, 9134, 9142, and 9145 in FIGS.91; 9222, 9224, 9226, and 9232 in FIG. 92; and 9312 in FIG. 93).

We disclose that the functionality provided by contract criteriainterfaces, such as illustrated in FIG. 91, FIG. 92, and FIG. 93, may beused to receive filtering or ranking criteria values from an end user.An end user may access a contract criteria interface 9210 from acontract criteria interface 9110 by selecting an option such asrepresented by “More Criteria . . . ” 9151, and similarly may access9241 a contract criteria interface 9310 from a contract criteriainterface 9210. We further disclose that when an end user has completeddata entry in a contract criteria interface, they may save suchinformation (Ref. 9342, 9243, and 9153) or cancel the operation (Ref9341, 9242, and 9152) and in either case a relevance management system1140 may return said end user to an interface from which a currentinterface (Ref. 9310, 9210, 9110, respectively) was accessed.

We have already disclosed the functionality of RFP work element 9144weights 9145, in reference to a procedureCompute_Weighted_Relevance_Value( ) in FIG. 76, and an exemplar set ofweights such as illustrated in FIG. 77.

We have already disclosed how we may use relevance weights in data thathas been selected from a relevance cube 2070, such as column 4801, todisplay results when using formats that may include, but are not limitedto, a relevance chart 4922. As was disclosed by functionality for aproject relevance summary section 4920, the order of rows in a table4922 may be associated with a row's relevance ranking 4925. A relevancemanagement system 1140 may apply a similar approach when ranking resultsbased on multiple relevance criteria, such as when multiple contractcriteria have been received from an end user using functionality such asprovided on a contract criteria interface (Ref 9110, 9210, or 9310). Weillustrate such functionality with the extended example data in FIG. 89for customer relevance 8903 criteria that correspond to contractcriteria weight 9134, and RFP-to-PD relevance 8905 criteria thatcorrespond to contract criteria weight 9142.

The table in FIG. 90 contains a subset of the columns in FIG. 89, namelyCustomer Relevance 9002 (which corresponds to a first column 8903) andRFP-to-PD Relevance 9003 (which corresponds to a second column 8905), aswell as the PD ID and RFP ID columns 9004 (which corresponds to a pairof columns 8907). In addition, we disclose that a relevance managementsystem 1140 may provide functionality such as to add a new column, suchas illustrated by Overall Relevance 9001, in which to record an overall,weighted relevance value for each row.

We disclose that a relevance management system 1140 may compute, foreach row in a table such as shown in FIG. 89, a relevance ranking, suchas a sum of the products of the individual relevance column entries (Ref9002 and 9003 in FIG. 90) and the corresponding contract criteria weight(Ref. 9134 and 9142 in FIG. 91, respectively). For example, the overallrelevance of the PD with PD ID 9004 equal to PD001, which corresponds tothe first row 9011 of the table, may be computed as 0.80 9002 times 1.09134 plus 3.61 9003 times 1.0 9142, which equals 4.41 9010. A relevancemanagement system 1140 may compute overall relevance values 9001 forremaining rows (Ref. 9012 through 9015), in this example in a similarmanner.

Note that the original relevance ranking of these PDs, illustrated inFIG. 49, produced a relevance ranking 4925 of PD003, PD001, PD005,PD002, and PD004, where “Project Description 3” corresponds to PD003,and so on. That ranking was based solely on the RFP-to-PD relevancevalue 4801 (which corresponds to a column 9003). When we “factor in” therelevance of the PD customers, however, as we have done in computing theOverall Relevance 9001, we see that the relative ranking of the projectshas changed, to: PD001, PD005, PD003, PD002, and PD004 that correspondto specific rows in FIG. 90 (Ref. 9011, 9015, 9013, 9012, and 9014,respectively), based on descending order of the computed overallrelevance values 9001. Intuitively, although PD003 has the highestrelevance score when relevance is based solely on RFP work elements(producing a score of 3.94), when customer relevance is also factoredin, PD001 (which had a somewhat lower RFP work element relevance scoreof 3.61) is determined to have a higher overall relevance score of 4.41(versus 4.14 for PD003). Reviewing the customer relevance dataillustrated in FIG. 85, we can see that PD003 was performed for acommercial customer, whereas PD001 was performed for a Government,Federal, USDA customer similar to that in the RFP 8503; this additionalcustomer relevance resulted in the updated rankings (moving PD001higher, above PD003), when customer relevance was factored into theoverall PD relevance ranking.

FIG. 94 generally depicts an exemplar execution of an interface forfiltering and ranking, in accordance with an exemplary embodiment of theinvention, illustrating the entry of filters for PoP dates and customer.FIG. 94 discloses how a relevance management system 1140 may usefunctionality such as provided by filtering or ranking interfaces suchas depicted in FIG. 91 to receive filtering criteria from an end user.Here we see that an end user has specified “Filters” 9411, and that arelevance management system 1140 has been instructed to use original RFPcriteria for ranking 9413. We see that an end user has specified a PoPstart date of 1-1-2013 and a PoP end date of Dec. 31, 2015 9421, andspecified a value of “Fed.” 9432, which is short for “Federal”, for acustomer filter criteria 9431.

FIG. 95 generally depicts an exemplar execution of an interface forfiltering or ranking, in accordance with an exemplary embodiment of theinvention, illustrating customer selection. Functionality such as adrop-down menu selector 9432 for a customer criteria 9431 may have beenpre-populated using headings from customer relevance columns 8904 thatwere used to determine customer relevance of PD with respect to thisRFP. As such in this example, the drop-down menu selector 9432 will havebeen populated with values such as shown in FIG. 95, beginning with“Any” 9411 and ending with “RMA” 9413, corresponding to a column heading8904. Here we see in FIG. 94 that an end user has navigated to a middlelevel of filter specificity, having chosen “Fed” 9512 (corresponding toa selector 9432), which happens to be midway between “Any” 9511 and“RMA” 9513.

FIG. 96 generally depicts an exemplar project relevance summary section,in accordance with an exemplary embodiment of the invention, shownpresenting updated results based on contract criteria interfaceexecution. As we disclose in reference to FIG. 94, an end user may save9432 new or updated filter criteria, which a relevance management system1140 may use to refresh an interface, or a section of an interface, suchas a project relevance summary section 5110 illustrated in FIG. 51 thatcontained five rows, with a filtered selection of PDs such asillustrated by an interface 9610 in FIG. 96, which now contains the twoPDs that meet the specified filter criteria: Project Description 1(corresponding to PD001), and Project Description 5 (corresponding toPD005). Reviewing PD data that has been entered in a relevancemanagement system 1140 for this extended example, for both customer(i.e., FIG. 85, FIG. 86, and columns 8904 in FIG. 89) and PoP start andPoP end dates (Ref. FIG. 88, and a first column 8901 and a second column8902, respectively), we can see that when a customer filter is applied,four PDs may be “interim” selected (PD001, PD002, PD004, and PD005,corresponding to rows (Ref. 8911, 8912, 8914, and 8915) in FIG. 89, asthese four PDs each have a non-zero value (i.e., a “1”) in the “Fed.”column 8904 in FIG. 89. When a relevance management system 1140 nextapplies a PoP date filter to these four interim selected rows, it maydetermine that PoP dates for PD002 and PD004 do not overlap with the PoPstart and PoP end dates an end user has specified 9421, and thus thesetwo PDs (PD002 and PD004) may be filtered out of an interim selection,leaving two remaining PDs in a final selection set, namely PD001 andPD005, corresponding to a first row 8911 and a second row 8915 in FIG.89. A relevance management system 1140 then may perform updates, such asto a relevance chart 9611, to present said two PDs (Project Description1 and Project Description 5), reflecting the filter criteria asspecified by an end user (Ref. FIG. 94).

Team Construction Processing Team Construction and RecommendationProcessing

We disclose in reference to FIG. 97 through FIG. 104 functionality arelevance management system 1140 may provide to support teamfacilitation (Ref. 1360, and FIG. 16), including team construction 1620.We also disclose in reference to FIG. 97 through FIG. 104 how acontroller module 1142 and an interface module 1143 may provide thenecessary interfaces and application logic for team facilitationprocesses.

An end user, who may be a capability-seeking end user 1130 who hasentered an RFP 1131 into a relevance management system 1140, or isotherwise associated with said RFP and is considering being a primecontractor 141, may wish to identify experience and capabilities ofpotential team members, who may be capability-providing end users 1130who have entered PDs 1111 into a relevance management system 1140 or areotherwise associated with said PDs. Recall that a prime contractor, inaddition to having entered an RFP into a relevance management system1140, may also likely have entered one of more PDs into said system, aswill have other non-prime contractors (i.e., potential subcontractors)who may seek to join a prime contractor's team.

FIG. 97 generally depicts a team construction interface 9710, inaccordance with an exemplary embodiment of the invention, that arelevance management system 1140 may present to an end user tofacilitate team construction. We disclose, in reference to a teamconstruction interface 9710, that said interface may be comprised ofsections, such as a reference RFP section 9720, a team section 9730, aselection section 9740, or a team action section 9750, and that eachsuch section can be considered its own interface, as can each fieldwithin a section.

Generally, a team section 9730 may display the results of a teamconstruction process; a selection section 9740 may display PDs forpossible selection by an end user for adding such experience andcapabilities to a team; and a team action section 9750 may providefunctionality to save 9751 or cancel 9752 updates to a team underconstruction, as well as functionality for additional options 9753. Wedisclose the functionality and operation of a team constructioninterface 9710 using again exemplar PD and RFP data as used throughoutthe extended example.

For clarity of specification of the present invention, we first broadlydisclose the functionality and operation of a team constructioninterface 9710, beginning with a disclosure of general functionality andoperation of a team section 9730, then a selection section 9740, andthen a reference RFP section 9720. Further disclosures on said sectionsand interface then follow.

Regarding a team section 9730, said section may include a visual,relevance chart, or other representations of RFP SOW work elements, suchas illustrated within a section 9731; as well as visual, relevancechart, or other representations of additional contract criteria for theRFP, such as within a section 9732. A team section 9730 may also includea representation to indicate whether a PD or team member displayed insaid team section 9730 has been “Confirmed” 9733, as we disclose infurther detail below.

Regarding a selection section 9740, said section may include, or beassociated with, the same, or similar, RFP SOW 9731, contract criteria9732, and Confirmed indicators 9733, such as represented in a teamsection 9730. In the exemplar selection section illustrated in 9740,these indicators (RFP SOW 9731, contract criteria 9732, and Confirmed9733, respectively) from the exemplar team section 9730 are usedpositionally, in an embodiment; for example, the black diamond (“♦”)exemplar symbols in columns two through six 9741 correspond to the RFPSOW elements 9731; the next eight columns 9741 (which contain exemplarcheck mark symbols, “✓”) correspond to the contract criteria 9732; andthe final column containing exemplar asterisk symbols (“

”) corresponds to the Confirmed column 9733.

Regarding a reference RFP section 9720, a relevance management system1140 may provide functionality that enables an end user (who may beidentified in a section 9721) to perform team construction, such as bybeginning by selecting an RFP 9722, whose requirements will be used ascriteria for forming a team. In this example, an end user is identifiedas having an exemplar name “PRIME” 9721. When an end user has specifiedan RFP 9722, such as by selecting it via its RFP ID, a relevancemanagement system 1140 may begin implementing data retrieval, filtering,ranking, and roll-up, as we disclose in reference to FIG. 55. Inparticular, we disclose that a relevance management system 1140 may usean indicated RFP ID 9722 to retrieve a slice of data 5515, such as froma relevance cube 5510, rolling such data up by PD 5521 to producePD-to-RFP-Element relevance data 5530, which may be presented in aselection section 9740, such as using rows in a table 9741 or othersuitable display metaphor, such as analogous to a relevance chart. Eachrow in said table 9741 may represent a PD whose PD data-entry values2021 match filtering criteria (Ref. 9724, 9731, or 9732), such asspecified by an end user. The order of rows in said table 9741 mayreflect the overall relevance of each PD, using ranking criteria 9724,such as specified by an end user, which may position a PD with a higheroverall relevance value at the top of said table 9741, and a PD with alower overall relevance value near the bottom of said table 9741.

FIG. 98 generally depicts an exemplar execution of team constructioninterface 9810, in accordance with an exemplary embodiment of theinvention. FIG. 98 illustrates a team construction interface 9810, basedon the data shown in FIG. 97, on which an end user has made twoselections (Ref. 9841 and 9842), as indicated in an embodiment by anexemplar “

” symbol), which a relevance management system 1140 has used to update ateam section 9830. Specifically, an end user, who is identified in thisexample as “PRIME”, has selected for inclusion in the team capabilities,the two “PRIME” PDs (PD001 and PD002, as illustrated in a section 9831,which correspond to a first selection 9841 and a second selection 9842,respectively). Such selection behavior by a prime contractor end user,namely selecting first those relevant capabilities for which they arethe owner, is quite typical, as the capabilities of a prime contractortypically form the “core” of a team's capabilities, which may then beaugmented and complemented by capabilities of subcontractors that aprime contractor may add subsequently.

Regarding the functionality and operation of a team action section 9850,an end user may select functionality such as represented by “Moreoptions . . . ” 9853, which may provide said end user with additionaloptions and actions that may be performed. We disclose that throughfunctionality such as represented by “More options . . . ” 9853, and enduser may instruct a relevance management system 1140 to update a teamconstruction interface 9810, which said system may perform such as byupdating a selection section 9840 or a team section 9830, to present theoverall relevance of a PD (such as illustrated by a column 9001 in FIG.90), the aggregated relevance of a PD owner (for example, “Prime”, asillustrated in a section 9831), or the aggregated relevance of a team.Said aggregated relevance of a PD owner may be computed in general suchas by summing the overall relevance values for the PDs with which saidPD owner is associated; a relevance management system 1140 may providean option to compute the aggregated relevance of a PD owner based on(for example, restricted to) PDs associated with the current team. As anexample, in a section 9831 this may represent the two PDs (PD001 andPD002) associated with PD owner Prime. From FIG. 90, the overallrelevance of Prime may be computed in this way by summing together 4.41and 2.18 (associated with PD001 9011 and PD002 9012, respectively) toarrive at a value of 6.59. Aggregated relevance of a team may becomputed analogously, in general such as by summing the aggregatedrelevance of PD owners associated with said team. We disclose that arelevance management system 1140 may provide similar functionality, todisplay PD and PD owner level relevance, such as for a capabilitiessummary interface 5810 illustrated in FIG. 58, or for other suitableinterfaces or sections.

Further regarding a team construction interface 9810, we disclose inreference to 9831 that when an end user selects a PD, such as a first PD9841 or a second PD 9842, the selection of which may have been performedby said end user in either order, a relevance management system 1140 mayupdate a team section 9830, such as by adding to the team the selectedPD, as illustrated by the two corresponding PDs (identified as PD001 andPD002 in a section 9831, and inclusion on the team is also indicated inan embodiment by an exemplar “

” symbol in a section 9831), as well as by adding a row to represent aPD owner, such as a row labeled “Prime” (whose inclusion on the team isalso indicated in an embodiment by an exemplar “

” symbol), whose row contents represents a roll-up by PD owner (“PRIME”in this case) that corresponds to an operation 5531 in FIG. 55. Asillustrated in FIG. 98, the row 9831 labeled “Prime” corresponds to theresulting PD-Owner-to-RFP-Element relevance data 5540 in FIG. 55. In asimilar way, we disclose that a relevance management system 1140 mayfurther rolled-up the resulting team data (i.e., performed a roll-up byteam 5541 to create Team-to-RFP-Element relevance data 5550) to update a“Team” row in a section 9831.

Further regarding a team construction interface 9810, we disclose thatat this point in the example, an end user may observe a capability gapthat the team has for RFP SOW 1.3, which is apparent in the team section9830 by the absence of a black diamond in the “Team” row for SOW 1.3,which is a result of the absence of a black diamond in the “Prime” rowfor SOW 1.3, which in turn is a result of the absence of a black diamondin either of the PD rows (PD001 or PD002), as illustrated in a section9831 in FIG. 98. We disclose that a relevance management system 1140 maydetect such capability gaps, including by identifying a column, such asin a table 9831, for which a Team row does not have an indicator, suchas a black diamond indicator, or other alternative indicator in analternative embodiment, such as we disclose above in reference to FIG.43B. An end user may (or may not) identify such capability gaps or othershortfalls, and in either case may be provided ability to correct suchshortfalls that exist (which a relevance management system 1140 hasidentified), by invoking a functionality such as represented by“Recommendation” 9833.

FIG. 99 generally depicts an exemplar execution of contract criteriainterface 9910 being used for recommendation processing, in accordancewith an exemplary embodiment of the invention. When an end userexercises functionality such as represented by “Recommendation” 9833, arelevance management system 1140 may use functionality to display acontract criteria interface 9910. Here we can see that said system hashighlighted (i.e., made a selection 9942, as may be indicated in anembodiment by an exemplar “

” symbol) the SOW 1.3 work element, providing a recommendation to an enduser to use SOW 1.3 as one of the required 9941 work elements 9940 inthe filter 9912. A relevance management system 1140 may have made saidrecommendation (i.e., to search for PDs that have a missing requiredwork element, SOW 1.3 in this case), based on a relevance managementsystem 1140 identifying a capability gap, which in this examplecorresponds to a missing indicator for said work element at the Teamlevel 9831, as we have disclosed above. We disclose that if an end userdid not wish to use functionality such as represented by“Recommendation” 9833, a relevance management system 1140 may providefunctionality that enables said end user to access (and update, asnecessary) a contract criteria interface 9910 by invoking functionalitysuch as represented by “View Filter and Ranking Criteria” 9824, such ason a reference RFP section 9820. In either case, when an end user saves9953 updates made on a contract criteria interface 9910, a relevancemanagement system 1140 may provide functionality to update a selectionsection 10040 on a team construction interface 10010, as illustrated inFIG. 100.

FIG. 100 generally depicts an exemplar execution of team constructioninterface 10010, in accordance with an exemplary embodiment of theinvention. Using the updated filtering criteria (such as illustrated inFIG. 99), we disclose in reference to FIG. 100 how a relevancemanagement system 1140 may select from a relevance cube the PDs thatmeet revised criteria; in the exemplar in FIG. 100 we see that arelevance management system 1140 has updated the “Required” indicator10042 to note that SOW 1.3 RFP element is now “required”, and we mayconfirm visually that all of the PDs displayed as rows 10041 in aselection section 10040 have an indicator, a black diamond in thisexemplar, in the column 10031 corresponding to SOW 1.3.

FIG. 101 generally depicts an exemplar execution of team constructioninterface 10110, in accordance with an exemplary embodiment of theinvention. FIG. 101 illustrates a selection 10141 an end user has made,based on the data shown in FIG. 100. Here we can see that an end userhas been presented with three PDs 10041 that may be used to fill acapability gap for SOW 1.3 10031. We see in FIG. 101 that an end userhas selected, the highest ranked (i.e., top-most row) PD 10141, PD003whose owner is “Sub 1”. We disclose that when an end user has made aselection 10141, a relevance management system 1140 may update a teamsection 10130 by adding rows corresponding to said selected PD and theassociated PD owner, such as illustrated for the two rows 10131, a firstcorresponding to PD003, and a second corresponding to Sub 1. Once again,we disclose that a relevance management system 1140 may perform aroll-up by PD owner 5531 to determine the capabilities, such asillustrated for Sub 1; and may further perform a roll-up by team 5541 tocreate the aggregated relevance data to update the Team row of the table10134. Here we can see that the capability gap for SOW 1.3 has indeedbeen filled by inclusion of PD003, and corresponding inclusion of Sub 1(the owner of PD003) as part of the team. In a similar manner, weobserve and disclose that inclusion of PD003 (and, Sub 1) on the teamhas enabled an end user to add to the team a PD and team member thatbrings special business classification (SB Class. 10133) qualifications,and that these qualifications have been aggregated to the team level10134 as well.

FIG. 102 generally depicts an exemplar execution of contract criteriainterface 10210, in accordance with an exemplary embodiment of theinvention, being used for filtering using criteria from an end user.Continuing the extended example, FIG. 102 illustrates a contractcriteria interface that a relevance management system 1140 may displaywhen functionality such as represented by “View Filter and RankingCriteria” 10124 is exercised. Here we can see, in this example, that anend user may continue to use the interface for filters 10212, and hasspecified a specific PoP date range 10221 and a specific customer 10231,providing as input values of 1-1-2013, 12-31-2015, and “Fed.” 10232,respectively. We note that the said PoP date range and customer criteriaare the same as we disclose in reference to FIG. 95 and FIG. 96. We alsodisclose in reference to FIG. 102 how an end user may deselect, such asdeselecting 10242 SOW 1.3, a required 10241 work element, to indicatethe said deselected element is no longer “required”. Upon saving 10253these updated criteria, a relevance management system 1140 may identifyand present to an end user PDs that meet the revised criteria.

FIG. 103 generally depicts an exemplar execution of team constructioninterface 10310, in accordance with an exemplary embodiment of theinvention. FIG. 103 illustrates the results a relevance managementsystem 1140 has produced using the revised filtering criteriaillustrated in FIG. 102, and the corresponding updates to a selectionsection 10340. Here we disclose how rows, such as in the table 10341,may be updated, for example to reflect the two PDs, PD001 and PD005,which meet revised criteria (such as illustrated in FIG. 102). Regardingthe filters for PoP date range 10221 and customer 10221, we note that arelevance management system 1140 may perform filtering, and in thisexample has filtered the PDs down to PD001 and PD005, as was discussedin reference to this same date range and customer criteria in referenceto FIG. 95 and FIG. 96. A relevance management system 1140 may alsoupdate the “Required” indicator, such as by deactivating the previousindicator for SOW 1.3, and activating indicators for “PoP” and “Cust.”,as an end user specified in FIG. 102.

Further regarding a team construction interface 10310, we disclosefunctionality that in producing and displaying, for example the two rows10341 in a selection section 10340, a relevance management system 1140may indicate (such as in an embodiment by an exemplar “

” symbol 10343) that a PD, such as PD001, has already been selected10343 to be part of a team. Such indication may inform an end user thata project shown in a selection section 10340 is currently part of ateam, as shown in team section 10330. We further disclose that if an enduser were to deselect a PD, such as PD001 10343, or any of the PDs orteam members in the team 10330 or selection 10340 sections, such as byremoving an exemplar “

” symbol 10343), the deselected PD and the corresponding PDs of saiddeselected team member would be removed in a team section 10330, such asby removing rows from a table, and the aggregated team and PD ownercapabilities expressed in a team section 10330 recomputed andredisplayed, accordingly. We disclose that a relevance management system1140 enables an end user to both add and removed PDs (and team members)from a team.

Further regarding a team construction interface 10310, FIG. 103illustrates an additional team-construction functionality a relevancemanagement system 1140 may provide, in which said system may maintain astatus for each PD with respect to the RFP 9722, indicating whether a PDhas been “Confirmed” 9733. Confirmation may be used as an indicator ofwhether an RFP owner has received “permission” from a PD owner to fullyaccess and use an indicated PD. We disclose that a relevance managementsystem 1140 may support multiple types of confirmation, which mayinclude, but are not limited to, a case in which an RFP owner and a PDowner have a previous working relationship, and as a result said PDowner has specified a “blanket” confirmation provision whereby said RFPowner may be automatically confirmed to use any PDs owned by said PDowner. In addition, a relevance management system 1140 may providebrokering functionality that enables an RFP owner to contact a PD owner10345 to seek such confirmation, which a relevance management system1140 may record and display for each PD 10344. Here we can see suchfunctionality illustrated (via an indicator 10344, and a column for suchan indicator 9733 in FIG. 97), in which an RFP owner “PRIME” has notreceived confirmation from a Sub 2 that Prime may use PD005, asindicated by the absence of an exemplar asterisk symbol (“

”) for said project 10344. We disclose that such confirmation indicator9733 may be provided as a convenience functionality, intended tosimplify the process of companies (i.e., RFP and PD owners) knowing withwhom they have discussed and confirmed the use of PDs, and may not beintended as legal permission (but also does not exclude its use as legalpermission) of a first company to include a PD of a second company in aproposal, a process that may be governed by regulations such as theFederal Acquisition Register (FAR) and other legal documents andprecedents.

FIG. 104 generally depicts an exemplar execution of team constructioninterface 10410, in accordance with an exemplary embodiment of theinvention. FIG. 104 illustrates selections that an end user has made,based on data in FIG. 103. In FIG. 103 we see that an end user has theoption of selecting a PD, such as PD005 that is owned by Sub 2 10341,who is not currently on the team. We see in FIG. 104 that when an enduser has selected a PD such as PD005 10441, a relevance managementsystem 1140 may use such selection to update a team section 10430, suchas by adding a new row for a PD and a PD owner, as necessary, which isillustrate here for two new rows 10431, corresponding to PD005 and Sub2. Once again a relevance management system 1140 may perform processing(as we disclose in reference to FIG. 55) to aggregate or rank theresults, and update a team section 10430 accordingly. When an end userhas completed team construction processing, they may save information10451 or cancel the operation 10452.

Proposal Artifact Generation Processing

As disclosed in reference to 234 and 434, a relevance management system1140 may provide functionality to facilitate proposal development,including development of proposal volumes, to include, but not limitedto a management volume 441, a technical volume 442, a past performancevolume 443, or a cost volume 444. Functionality for such facilitationmay be performed advantageously before, during, or after teamconstruction processing, including as we have disclosed above inreference FIG. 97.

Recall that a team construction interface 9710, such as illustrated inFIG. 97, may contain a team actions section 9750, which may includefunctionality such as represented by “More options . . . ” 9753, whichmay enable an end user to request a relevance management system 1140 toperform additional actions. Using functionality such as represented by“More options . . . ” 9753, or through other suitable functionality, anend user may be presented with a proposal outline-to-RFP mappinginterface 10510, such as we disclose in reference to FIG. 105. Saidproposal outline-to-RFP mapping interface 10510 may providefunctionality such as represented by “Generate proposal artifacts”10533, with which a user may instruct a relevance management system 1140to generate proposal artifacts.

Functionality for a process of generating a proposal artifact mayincorporate additional information, such as may be provided by an enduser, and may include, but is not limited to, information regarding aproposal and its constituent volumes 440. Specifically, said informationmay include, but is not limited to, a mapping that represents arelationship between a requirement in an RFP 420 and a proposal volume440. A mapping may include, but is not limited to, a relationshipbetween an element contained within a SOW 421, PPI 422, or EC 423, orother component of an RFP, and an element within a proposal volume 440.

FIG. 105 generally depicts a proposal outline-to-RFP mapping interface10510, in accordance with an exemplary embodiment of the invention,which may be facilitated by a controller module 1142 and an interfacemodule 1143, as illustrated in FIG. 11, which may generate or manageinterfaces and application workflow 10510 to represent a proposaloutline-to-RFP mapping.

We disclose in reference to FIG. 105 that a proposal outline-to-RFPmapping interface 10510 may be comprised of sections, such as an outlineidentification section 10515, an RFP identification section 10516, aproposal mapping section 10520, or a proposal actions section 10530; andthat each such section can be considered its own interface, as can eachfield within a section.

We disclose further in reference to FIG. 105 that a proposal mappingsection 10520 may be comprised of sections, such as an RFP requirementssection 10522, a proposal outline section 10521, or a relevant PDssection 10525; and that each such section can be considered its owninterface, as can each field within a section.

Regarding an RFP identification section 10516, said section may identifyan end user (such as an exemplar RFP owner “Prime”, in the example), ormay enable an end user to select an RFP, such as by RFP ID. Regarding anoutline identification section 10515, said section may enable an enduser to select a proposal outline or create a new proposal outline,which may be associated with said RFP.

Those skilled in the art will recognize that functionality such asprovided by the intersection of a proposal outline section 10521 and anRFP requirements section 10522 may provide a matrix that may enable aproposal-development professional, such as a proposal manager (i.e., aperson who oversees development of a proposal by a proposal-writingteam), to specify a proposal outline (illustrated by the rows 10521), aswell as how a section within said proposal outline may relate to an RFPrequirement (as illustrated by a column 10522). Here we disclose anexemplary outline 10521 for a Technical Volume and a Management Volume(which may correspond to a first volume 442 and a second volume 441,respectively), and that said exemplar Technical Volume in this examplecontains three major sections (1.0 Introduction, 2.0 Technical Approach,and 3.0 Conclusion), as well as a single subsection 2.1 Software Dev.;and that the exemplar Management Volume contains four major sections(1.0 Introduction, 2.0 Mgmt. Approach, 3.0 Staffing, and 4.0Conclusion). The exemplar RFP requirements 10522 illustrated in FIG. 105are taken from the extended example used throughout the specification ofthe present invention, as introduced in reference to FIG. 7. Here we cansee that a relevance management system 1140 may enable a section (or,subsection) of a proposal outline (such as 2.0 Mgmt. Approach) to beassociated with an RFP requirement (such as SOW 2—Manage the Project),as illustrated by an exemplar “plus” sign (“

”) symbol indicator 10523. Those skilled in the art will recognize thatsuch a mapping may be intended to specify that an RFP requirement, suchas associated with SOW 2—Manage the Project in this example, shall beaddressed in a specific proposal section, such as section 2.0 Mgmt.Approach in this example, which is part of a Management Volume response.We disclose that in a similar way, remaining relationships between aproposal outline 10521 and RFP requirements 9722 may be specified, andrecorded by a relevance management system 1140.

Recall that a relevance management system 1140 may provide functionalitythan enables an end user to identify one or more PDs that are relevantto RFP requirements (e.g., as illustrated in FIG. 49, FIG. 51, and FIG.97), and that a team construction interface (such as illustrated in FIG.97) may enable an end user to select PDs, as part of constructing ateam. When such PDs have been identified or selected, a relevancemanagement system 1140 may include said PDs (or a subset of said PDs)for display as part of a proposal outline-to-RFP mapping interface10510, as illustrated by the inclusion of two PDs in the relevant PDssection 10524 in FIG. 105. We can see, for example, that as we disclosein reference to FIG. 49 (in particular, in reference to a selection4924), a relevance management system 1140 may have determined thatexemplar Project Description 1 is relevant to exemplar SOW 2—Manage theProject, which is illustrated analogously in FIG. 105 by an indicator10525. (Here too as we disclose in reference to FIG. 105, that wecontemplate a broad range of graphical idioms and alternativeembodiments, including but not limited to a “black diamond” (“♦”), thatmay be used as functionality to indicate relevance or degree ofrelevance, as we disclose above in reference to FIG. 43B) The RFP-to-PDrelevance results (as illustrated by exemplar black diamonds in rows10524), which represent relevance of an RFP element to a PD, may berelated to a proposal outline-to-RFP mapping (such as illustrated byexemplar plus sign “

” symbols in rows 10521), as we have illustrated here by juxtaposingsaid RFP-to-PD relevance results 10524 beneath said proposaloutline-to-RFP mapping 10521 in FIG. 105. (The physical positioning ofsaid relevance results to said mapping in FIG. 105 is for illustrative,expository purposes in an interface 10510; a relevance management system1140 may manage a relationship between said relevance result and saidmapping without requiring either or both to be displayed on aninterface, as the latter has been illustrated in FIG. 105.) A relevancemanagement system 1140 may thus determine a relationship between asection of an outline 10521 and an element in a PD 10524; for example,we can see that as part of a Management Volume, Section 2.0 Mgmt.Approach shall address a requirement in SOW 2—Manage the Project (asindicated by an indicator 10523), and that two PDs (Project Description1 and Project Description 2) may provide relevant experience for saidrequirement (as indicated by a first indicator 10525 and a secondindicator 10526, respectively). In this way, a relevance managementsystem 1140 may identify those elements of a PD (such as a first element10525 and a second element 10526, for the exemplar PDs ProjectDescription 1 and Project Description 2, respectively, in the example inFIG. 105) that are associated with a specific section of a proposaloutline (such as exemplar 2.0 Mgmt. Approach, as indicated by anindicator 10523, in the example). A relevance management system 1140 mayprovide multiple options to further process information associated witha proposal outline-to-RFP mapping 10510, which may include functionalityto save said information 10531, cancel any updates 10532, or generate aproposal artifact 10533.

We disclose in reference to FIG. 106, FIG. 107, FIG. 108, and FIG. 109exemplary proposal artifacts a relevance management system 1140 maygenerate using information such as represented in FIG. 105 andinformation maintained by a relevance management system 1140, wheninstructed (for example, via an operation request 10533 in FIG. 105).

FIG. 106 generally depicts an exemplar proposal writing plan artifact10610, in accordance with an exemplary embodiment of the invention,which may be generated by a relevance management system 1140. Thoseskilled in the art will understand the importance of a proposal outline,including a high-level outline 10521 such as illustrated in FIG. 105,and a more detailed elaboration of said high-level outline, often calleda “writing plan” or “detailed outline”, that may identify RFPrequirements that are to be addressed in each section of a proposal.FIG. 106 discloses an exemplary writing plan 10610 a relevancemanagement system 1140 may generate as a proposal artifact. As wedisclose in reference to in FIG. 106, a writing plan 10510 may include aproposal outline 10620 (which corresponds to an outline 10521 in FIG.105), as well as RFP requirements 10621 that shall be addressed in eachproposal section (which correspond to a mapping specified by exemplarplus signs “

” symbols 10522). We disclose that in an alternative embodiment, a moredetailed specification of an RFP requirement may be provided asrequirements 10621; for example, the contents of a column 10621 in FIG.106 illustrate an RFP heading associated with a requirement (e.g., anRFP element label 3153 in FIG. 31), which may be augmented by a moredetailed description (e.g., an RFP element description 3154 in FIG. 31).

We further disclose in reference to a proposal writing plan artifact10610 that a relevance management system 1140 may increase the valuethat a writing plan, such as 10610, may provide to a proposal-writingteam by incorporating, in said writing plan, directly relevantexperience from PDs that said proposal-writing team may use to“substantiate” their approach as they write the associated sections, byciting in the written sections said experience as evidence that theirteam has performed the required services previously. We disclose that arelevance management system 1140 may provide said directly relevantexperience in a work plan by processing a relationship such asrepresented in a proposal mapping interface 10520, such as arelationship between a proposal section 10521 and a relevant PD 10524.For example, we noted in reference to FIG. 105 that section 2.0 Mgmt.Approach shall address requirements 10523 for SOW 2—Manage the Project,and that two PDs may be relevant (as illustrated by a first indicator10525 and a second indicator 10526 in FIG. 105). Here we can see in FIG.106 that a relevance management system 1140 has used such a relationshipto populate, for the two identified PDs (Ref. 10630 and 10631),additional columns in a work plan (illustrated by exemplars PD Owner10622, PD ID 10623, and PD Name 10624, and a description), by retrievingfrom a relevance cube 2070, relevance data store 2045, or PD data store2031 information for said additional columns. A resulting detailedwriting plan (such as illustrated by a plan 10610) may be distributed toa proposal-writing team, giving said team a significant “head start” incollecting and organizing critical information they may use toeffectively respond to proposal requirements, as said writing teamdevelops the proposal volumes.

FIG. 107 generally depicts an exemplar rationale for team compositionartifact 10710, in accordance with an exemplary embodiment of theinvention, which may be generated by a relevance management system 1140.One of the tasks a proposal-writing team must often perform in writing amanagement volume of a proposal (or other such volume of a proposal) isto explain the composition of the team they are proposing, in particularif a team includes subcontractors. Intuitively, a customer may provide ahigher score during evaluation 150 for a proposal 142 that provides arationale for team composition. Does a proposed team have capabilitiesto meet all RFP requirements? Have subcontractors been brought on-boarda team to augment or complement capabilities of a prime contractor? FIG.107 discloses an exemplar proposal artifact a relevance managementsystem 1140 may produce to help a proposal-writing team convey answersto such questions in a proposal. We disclose that an artifact such asdepicted in FIG. 107 may be generated from information created by teamconstruction processing 1720, for example using functionality thatenabled an end user to construct a team such as in a team section 10430.For an artifact such as depicted in FIG. 107, the results such asdepicted in a team section 10430 may be filtered, for example to includeonly PD owner and Team capabilities (i.e., omitting PDs), andrestricting columns to RFP SOW elements. We further disclose that arationale for team construction artifact 10710 may include a variety ofinformation on team capabilities 10720, including, but not limited to,overall team capabilities 10721, as well as breakdowns such as by primecontractor 10722 or subcontractor 10723, or other suitable methods. Arationale for team composition 10710 may include information such asspecial business classification 2831, or other criteria, or otherinformation.

FIG. 108 generally depicts an exemplar rationale for past performanceselection artifact 10810, in accordance with an exemplary embodiment ofthe invention, which may be generated by a relevance management system1140. Successful, high-scoring evaluation of a Past Performance volume443 may be critical to achieving a high proposal evaluation score 150.As such, it may be critical for a proposal-writing team to not onlyselect the most relevant PDs to include (as may be facilitated byfunctionality such as provided in interfaces such as illustrated in FIG.49, FIG. 51, and FIG. 97), but also to convey a rationale for theresulting PD selection (such as for use in a past performance volume443) that is easily and quickly comprehended. FIG. 108 illustrates anexemplar proposal artifact a relevance management system 1140 maygenerate that provides a rationale for a past performance selection10810, and which may present various information 10820 that may include,but is not limited to, an indication of overall relevant experience10821, such as represented by past performance PDs that may be includedin a proposal, as well as an indication of relevant experience such asrepresented by an individual past performance 10822. As with therationale artifact depicted in FIG. 107, a rationale artifact such asillustrated in FIG. 108 may be constructed from information created byfunctionality such as team construction processing 1720, for examplesuch as represented in a team section 10430. For an artifact such asillustrated in FIG. 108, results such as illustrated in a section 10430may be filtered to include PD results (i.e., omitting PD ownercapabilities) and team capabilities, and restricting columns to RFP SOWelements. An exemplar past performance selection rationale 10810 mayprovide functionality such as a high-level summary that may precededetailed past performance descriptions in a past performance volume 443.A rationale for past performance selection 10810 may include informationsuch as special business classification 2831, or other criteria, orother information.

FIG. 109 generally depicts an exemplar past performance write-upartifact, in accordance with an exemplary embodiment of the invention,which may be generated by a relevance management system 1140. Inaddition to providing functionality for generating a summary rationalefor past performance selection (such as illustrated in FIG. 108), arelevance management system 1140 may provide functionality to generatean actual past performance description (such as may be included in apast performance volume 443), such as illustrated by the exemplarartifact in FIG. 109. The exemplar artifact in FIG. 109 illustrates aone-page a past performance “write-up” artifact a relevance managementsystem 1140 may generate, such as for exemplar Project Description 1 asused in the extended example throughout the specification of the presentinvention. A relevance management system 1140 may identify said artifactas a past performance write-up 10910, illustrated in the example asbeing “Project 1 of 4”, and corresponding to the first of four PDs asshown in an artifact 10822 in FIG. 108. A past performance write-up mayinclude information associated with a corresponding PD 10920, which mayinclude, but is not limited to, information captured during PD dataentry 2021, such as customer, PoP, and so on, as captured usingfunctionality such as illustrated in by 2615 in FIG. 26, or otherinformation, including as determined or generated by a relevancemanagement system 1140. A past performance write-up artifact may alsoinclude additional information, such as a PD owner or a project name,shown here by exemplars for a contractor and project name 10930. Perhapsmost importantly, a past performance write-up artifact may includeinformation 10940 that describes how a PD associated with said pastperformance write-up is relevant to an RFP requirement 10941, such as bydescribing relevant experience said PD brings to said RFP requirement. Arelevance management system 1140 may provide such relevance informationin a write-up artifact such as depicted in FIG. 109, based upon theresults of a processing module such as disclosed in reference to FIG.20; for example, for an entry that addresses a SOW requirement, such asfor exemplar SOW 2—Manage the Project 10942, a relevance managementsystem 1140 may include as relevant experience a detailed description,such as entered during PD data entry as part of a work descriptor 2655.Here again, the functionality we disclose to rapidly and automaticallygenerate such past performance write-up artifacts may give aproposal-writing team a significant “head start” in developing the finalpast performance write-ups that may be submitted to a customer with aproposal. For example, an ability to rapidly generate a past performancewrite-up artifact for a given project (or, projects), and distributesaid past performance write-up artifacts, such as internally within aproposal-writing team, or perhaps to a company's executive managementfor early approval, may significantly reduce effort and cost to developa winning proposal.

Template Processing Motivation for Template-Based Match Processing

The processing module we have disclosed in FIG. 20 may use direct matchprocessing 2040 to determine relevance of an RFP to a PD, and may usefunctionality such as procedure Determine_Relevance_Matrix( ) (Ref. FIG.35) to compute relevance of work elements of an RFP to work elements ofa PD, which effectively represents relevance of an RFP work descriptor(as a whole) to a PD work descriptor (as a whole) in matrix format.

Thus we disclose that functionality such as provided by direct matchprocessing 2040 and Determine_Relevance_Matrix( ) (Ref. FIG. 35)represent a nexus that may connect RFPs with PDs. We may consider aprocessing module (Ref. FIG. 20) as containing n PDs and m RFPs (whichmay be stored in a PD data store 2031 and an RFP data store 2032), andmay determine that the number of times direct match processing 2040 mayinvoke Determine_Relevance_Matrix( ) (Ref. FIG. 35) to match all n PDswith all m RFPs equals the product of n times m (or simply, nm), such asto compute the resulting nm instances of relevance matrices (each suchrelevance instance may be analogous to an example illustrated in FIG.37). Considering a real-world implementation of a processing module suchas illustrated in FIG. 20, we disclose that it may be reasonable toexpect, at any given time, thousands or tens-of thousands of PDs to bestored in a relevance management system 1140, such as in a PD data store2031, e.g. on the order of 10³<n<10⁴; and hundreds (if not thousands) ofRFPs to be stored, such as in an RFP data store 2032, e.g. on the orderof 10²<m<10³. Thus we further disclose that it may be reasonable toexpect a relevance management system 1140 to invoke functionality suchas provided by Determine_Relevance_Matrix( ) (Ref. FIG. 35) roughly amillion times (on the order of 10⁶) to produce the relevance matrices.

As we disclose above, a controller module 1142 may provide a workflow orother suitable type of processing to “shepherd” each PD and RFP instancethrough a processing module as illustrated in FIG. 20, which may use adataflow architecture, or other suitable architecture, where processinputs such as PDs and RFPs in the PD 2031 and RFP 2032 data stores maybe queued at each processing step, including for direct match processing2040, and processing procedures may be executed when new or updatedinputs arrive. By processing only new or updated inputs, functionalitysuch as provided by a controller module 1142 may avoid unnecessaryinvocations of functionality such as Determine_Relevance_Matrix( ) (Ref.FIG. 35), including those beyond the nm.

We disclose that it is useful to consider system processing (within aprocessing module such as we disclose in reference to FIG. 20) that maybe performed when, for example, a new RFP is entered in a relevancemanagement system 1140. (The analysis is similar for a new PD.) As a newRFP may be shepherded through direct match processing 2040, a relevancemanagement system 1140 may need to match it against all n PDs in arelevance management system 1140, i.e. invokingDetermine_Relevance_Matrix( ) (Ref. FIG. 35) on the order of(conservatively) 10³ times. This illustrates the importance ofautomating direct match processing 2040, as may be accomplished by arelevance management system 1140 providing functionality such as aprocedure Determine_Relevance_Matrix( ) (Ref. FIG. 35); for example, ifan end user were to perform the 10³ matches manually for each new RFPentered in a relevance management system 1140, at a conservativeestimate of 5 minutes per match, it would take an end user more than 80hours to manually match the single RFP to all 10³ PDs.

We disclose that an important concern when providing functionality suchas automated matching techniques such as Determine_Relevance_Matrix( )(Ref. FIG. 35), which may in turn make use of document similaritymatching techniques, now known or hereafter developed, such as TF-IDF,LSA, and others, as discussed in reference to FIG. 35, is the efficacyof such automated matching. Are the produced match results reasonable?Are they valid? One cannot expect, for example, an end user who has justentered a new RFP in a relevance management system 1140 to manuallyreview all 10³ match results (that may represent high and low degrees ofmatching) such as produced by Determine_Relevance_Matrix( ) (Ref. FIG.35), to gauge efficacy. Similarly, when an end user enters a new PD in arelevance management system 1140, to be matched against the(conservative) 10² RFPs in a relevance management system 1140, is itpossible to provide some level of assurance a priori such matching thatan end user's PD description has been constructed effectively, and willindeed “match well” with a relevant RFPs?

Flow for Template-Based Match Processing

FIG. 110 generally depicts template processing, in accordance with anexemplary embodiment of the invention, which a relevance managementsystem 1140 may use to improved match-processing efficiency as well asto gauge matching efficacy. As we disclose in further detail below,template processing such as we disclose in reference to FIG. 110 may beused to calibrate and validate RFP-to-PD relevance results before havinga relevance management system 1140 perform all nm matches usingfunctionality such as direct match processing 2040 andDetermine_Relevance_Matrix( ) (Ref. FIG. 35). As we disclose in furtherdetail below, functionality such as provided by template processing(Ref. FIG. 110) may have a PD or RFP owner perform (or review) a singleRFP-to-PD match result to gauge efficacy, rather than requiring saidowner to perform n or m matches or reviews (conservatively, 10² or 10³manual actions, which would not be feasible), for each PD or RFP enteredin a relevance management system 1140, respectively.

We disclose in reference to FIG. 110 the use of a standard template(ST), which may be stored in an ST data store 11030 (which correspondsto a store 2030), and which may be used to represent and encode therelevance of a PD 11031 or an RFP 11032 in a standardized way for a PD11051 or an RFP 11052, respectively.

We further disclose in reference to FIG. 110 that functionality providedthrough a standardized PD 11051 or a standardized RFP data store 11052may be used for multiple purposes in a relevance management system 1140,which include, but are not limited to, the following. A first use may beto allow a PD owner and an RFP owner to view initial matching resultsfor PD-to-ST and RFP-to-ST relevance (such as may be stored in a firststore 11051 and a second store 11052, respectively) to determine howwell a PD or RFP has matched with relevant elements in a standardtemplate (ST). By inspecting the match result for a PD or RFP, an enduser may gauge whether or not a PD or RFP may need to be improved, forexample, by updating, augmenting, or replacing the current PD or RFPdescriptive content, in order to improve match efficacy. An end usermay, for example, decide to improve the description of a PD work elementby including additional terms (e.g., rewriting “performed moduleconstruction . . . ” as “performed software development to constructmodules . . . ” if said end user determined that a less commonly usedphrase, such as “module construction”, did not match well with an STdescription, such as “software development”). After implementing such anupdate, a relevance management system 1140 may provide functionalitythat enables an end user to have said system perform functionality suchas PD template pre-processing again, to determine if said update hasimproved the efficacy of matching.

A second use for a standardized PD 11051 or RFP 11052 data store may beto provide functionality to enable a relevance management system 1140 toefficiently estimate the relevance of an RFP to a PD when performingfunctionality such as template-based match processing 11060. As wedisclose in reference to FIG. 114, FIG. 115, FIG. 116, and FIG. 117,functionality such as relevance estimation may be performed byleveraging the transitive nature of relevance that our definition ofrelevance provides. The resulting estimate of RFP-to-PD relevance, whichmay be relatively efficient to compute in an embodiment (in terms oftime and computer processing resources), may be used to guide arelevance management system 1140 in determining whether or not it mayappear worthwhile to invoke a relatively more heavyweight matchingprocess, such as direct match processing 2040, for the purpose ofcomputing a match result having higher fidelity than the said estimate.For example, template-based match processing 11060 may enable arelevance management system 1140 to efficiently identify potentialRFP-to-PD results that appear promising and may warrant furtherprocessing, and conversely to identify potential RFP-to-PD results thatdo not appear promising and do not warrant further processing.

ST Project Descriptor Template Processing

FIG. 111 generally depicts an ST Project Descriptor for templateprocessing, in accordance with an exemplary embodiment of the invention,that is based on an ST depicted in FIG. 23, in which a work descriptor(Ref. 2315 and 11115) has been expanded. Said expanded work descriptor11115 may provide functionality analogous to a PD or RFP work descriptor(such as illustrated by a first descriptor 2515 in FIG. 25 and a seconddescriptor 3015 in FIG. 30), namely to define a range of work elementsthat are within the scope of an ST work descriptor. Whereas a PD workdescriptor (such as a third descriptor 2315 in FIG. 23) may define workthat has been performed for a particular project, and an RFP workdescriptor (such as said first descriptor 2515 in FIG. 25) may definework that may be performed for a future project, an ST work descriptor(such as a fourth descriptor 11115 in FIG. 111) may be intended toencompass both of these, by defining classes of work elements torepresent the scope of work that may have been performed in any previousPD, as well as work that may be performed for any future project such asdefined in an RFP. While such a scope definition is clearly a broadmandate for an ST work descriptor (such as said fourth descriptor 11115in FIG. 111), we disclose that it may be accomplished by viewing an STwork descriptor as a taxonomy, ontology, or other organizationalstructure for a specific work domain, which may include, but are notlimited, to “Information Technology Support Services”, “Intelligence andAnalysis Support Services”, or “Research and Development SupportServices”, and so on. We disclose that a relevance management system1140 may provide functionality to enable the entry and use within saidsystem 1140 of multiple STs, such as we disclose in reference to an STdata entry process 2020 and an ST data entry interface such as FIG. 24(which may include a meta-data section 2410 for identifying and creatingmultiple STs within a relevance management system 1140). In thespecification of the present invention, we illustrate an ST workdescriptor 11115 using terminology that aligns with an “InformationTechnology (IT) Support Services” work domain, without loss ofgenerality. We can see in FIG. 111 that a work descriptor 11115 has beenconstructed to include a broad range of IT support services, including“Project Management”, “Software Development” (and its componentelements, “Requirements”, “Design”, “Development”, and “Testing”),“Systems Engineering”, and so on.

For the purpose of disclosing functionality, via the example we depictbelow in FIG. 118A through FIG. 118D, we have associated with the firstseven elements of the ST work descriptor 11115 identifiers “S1”, “S2”,“S3”, and so on through “S7”, as shown. These ST identifiers areanalogous to an array of identifiers shown for a PD work descriptor 3225in FIG. 32 (e.g., “P8” through “P13”), and an RFP work descriptor 3325in FIG. 33 (e.g., “R8” through “R14”).

FIG. 112 generally depicts an ST data entry interface for templateprocessing, in accordance with an exemplary embodiment of the invention,in which a controller module 1142 and an interface module 1143 mayprovide the necessary interface components and application logic for anST data entry processes. We disclose in reference to FIG. 112 how an enduser may be presented with functionality such as an interface 11200,which may be analogous to an interface 2400 in FIG. 24, that may presenta view of an ST Project Descriptor 11110 that is in the process of beingconstructed, reviewed, or updated, such as by an administrative user.

We further disclose, in reference to an ST data entry interface 11200,that said interface may be comprised of sections, such as a meta-datasection 11210, or an ST Project Descriptor section 11220, and that eachsuch section can be considered its own interface, as can each fieldwithin a section.

Functionality provided by a meta-data section 11210 may includepresenting information regarding an owner of a template 11211, which isan exemplar “Admin” administrative user in this case, as well as asystem-generated unique identifier for a template 11212, which is anexemplar “ST001” in this case. A meta-data section may enable a user toprovide a name for a template as well 11213.

Functionality provided by an ST Project Descriptor section 11220 mayenable a user to update a customer descriptor section 11221, as wedisclose in reference to FIG. 24, as well as a work descriptor section11222. A user may have an ability to add 11230 or delete 11231 elementsin a Project Descriptor section 11220, as well as rearrange or replicateelements or subtrees within a Project Descriptor section 11220. AProject Descriptor section 11220 may enable an end user to selectelements, as we disclose by illustrating the selection of an elementlabeled Project Management 11223, whose circle is shown as darkened. Auser may be provided functionality to enter data for a selected elementlabel field 11224 as well as an element description field 11225. Arelevance management system 1140 may provide functionality for a user toinstruct said system to save 11240 to an internal ST data store 11030changes made to a Project Descriptor, or to reject these changes bycanceling 11241.

Further regarding functionality provided by an ST Project Descriptorsection 11220, we can see in FIG. 112 that a user is in the process (notyet complete) of updating a work descriptor 11222, which when completewill correspond to a work descriptor 11115 illustrated in FIG. 111. Inthis example, when a user has completed updating a work descriptor11222, said descriptor will contain the elements as shown in adescriptor 11115 in FIG. 111, and each said element may include ainformation such as a detailed description of that work element, asillustrated by an element 11224 for “Project Management” 11223. Thefunctionality provided by a relevance management system 1140, such as adetailed description for an element (e.g., a description 11224 for“Project Management” 11223), may enable an administrative user, or othersuch user, to associate a description of a class of work with an elementof an ST.

Relevance Validation and Tuning

A relevance management system 1140 may provide functionality such thatwhen a new PD or RFP has been entered in a relevance management system1140, functionality such as a controller module 1142 may implement aworkflow process to “shepherd” each PD and RFP instance through atemplate processing module as illustrated in FIG. 110. For templateprocessing (such as FIG. 110), a controller module 1142 may providefunctionality to invoke PD template pre-processing 11041 or RFP templatepre-processing 11042 for a PD or an RFP, respectively, that has beenentered in a relevance management system 1140. Template pre-processingfor a 11041 PD and an RFP 11042 may be analogous; we disclose theprocess for a PD without loss of generality.

Functionality provided by a controller module 1142 may initiate andperform PD template pre-processing 11041 by invoking procedureDetermine_Relevance_Matrix( ) (Ref. FIG. 35) with a PD work descriptorin array format 3225 as argument A; an ST work descriptor in arrayformat 3325 as argument B; as well as an instance of aContent_Comparator( ) function and a Min_Threshold value, as we disclosein reference to FIG. 35. Analogous to the execution and results asdepicted in FIG. 37 (in which work descriptors for a PD and an RFP wereused), a procedure Determine_Relevance_Matrix( ) (Ref. FIG. 35) maycreate a relevance matrix similar to a matrix 3730 in FIG. 37 in whichindividual entries (such as an array 3731) may represent relevance of aPD element to an ST element. A relevance management system 1140 maystore the resulting relevance matrix, such as in a standardized PD datastore 11051. A relevance management system 1140 may providefunctionality, such as via a controller module 1142, to further invokeprocedure Build_Relevance_Table( ) (Ref. FIG. 38), providing it asarguments a relevance matrix created by Determine_Relevance_Matrix( )(Ref. FIG. 35), as well as the associated PD and ST work descriptors asarguments A and B, respectively. A relevance management system 1140 maystore, such as in a relevance cube 2070, the resulting relevance table.We disclose that such “element-to-element” (E2E) relevance results maybe analogous to the PD-Element-to-RFP-Element relevance results such asa result 5520 illustrated in FIG. 55, as indeed the PD, RFP, and STProject Descriptors may share a common format, as we disclose inreference to in FIG. 20 and FIG. 21.

FIG. 113 generally depicts an element-to-element (E2E) relevanceinterface 11310, in accordance with an exemplary embodiment of theinvention, which a relevance management system 1140 may use forrelevance validation and tuning. Said system may provide functionality,such as illustrated in FIG. 113, as part of PD template preprocessing11041, to present to an end user PD-to-ST element-to-element (E2E)relevance matrix results, such as may be computed by a call toDetermine_Relevance_Matrix( ) (Ref. FIG. 35) and subsequent processingby a call to Build_Relevance_Table( ) (Ref. FIG. 38), using in thisexample a PD and an ST work descriptor as inputs.

A relevance management system 1140 may provide functionality forpresenting to an end user such PD-to-ST E2E relevance results, usingfunctionality such as a relevance interface 11310, which we disclose maybe comprised of sections, such as a PD owner section 11315, an STsection 11316, an E2E relevance section 11320, a PD-element detailsection 11330, or an ST-element detail section 11340, and that each suchsection can be considered its own interface, as can each field within asection. We further disclose that a relevance interface 11310 mayprovide similar functionality to an RFP-to-PD E2E relevance interface5210 we disclose in reference to FIG. 52.

Regarding functionality such as provided by an E2E relevance section11320, which may include a relevance chart type format or other suitabledisplay metaphor to present results, those skilled in the art willrecognize that the black diamond symbols (“♦”), such as shown in saidsection 11320, correspond to non-zero entries in a relevance matrix(e.g., an entry 3730, in an exemplar), which represents the basis for amodel that an E2E relevance section 11320 may render as a view, andwhich may be performed using an MVC paradigm as previously discussed.Here again, we contemplate a broad range of alternative embodiments inwhich the so called “black diamonds” entries and the relevance chart inthe E2E relevance section 11320 may be represented or displayed inalternative ways in alternative embodiments, as we disclose in referenceto FIG. 43B above.

The functionality provided by an E2E relevance interface 11310 may havemultiple uses, one of which may be to enable an end user to review orvalidate relevance results as computed by a relevance management system1140 during PD template pre-processing 11041, to gauge efficacy. Forexample, did the correct work elements of a PD “match” withcorresponding, relevant work elements of an ST? If so, an end user mayconclude that a PD has been validated, such as having been effectivelyconstructed to perform relevance matching. If there exists a PD elementthat an end user believes did not “match” properly, a relevancemanagement system 1140 may provide functionality so that said end usermay be able to update said PD element, for example by editing a PDelement label or description (such as via functionality represented by“Edit element” 11333), or update an association between elements (suchas via functionality represented by “Update association . . . ” 11352),and may be provided an ability to run template matching again (such asvia functionality represented by “Run template matching” 11351), todetermine whether an updated description improved matching.

Further regarding functionality such as provided by an E2E relevanceinterface 11310, said interface may provide sections to provideinformation identify to a PD or a PD owner 11315, and to identify orselect an ST 11316. As we disclose in reference to FIG. 113, an E2Erelevance section 11320 may include information on a PD, here shown byPD work elements 11321, as well as information on an ST, here shown byST work elements 11322. A relevance section 11320 may indicate therelevance of a PD element to an ST element by the presence of a blackdiamond, or other indicator as we disclose in reference to FIG. 43B. AnE2E relevance section 11320 may enable an end user to select entries,for example as shown by a circle 11323 indicating selection of theintersection of the PD “Project Management” element 11321 and the ST“Project Management” element 11322. As a result of such selection,functionality such as on an E2E relevance interface 11310 may present toan end user additional information, which may include, but is notlimited to, the relevance value associated with said selected PD and STelements, shown in FIG. 113 by the relevance value 11324 displaying avalue 0.71, which may correspond to the relevance of a PD ProjectManagement element to an ST Project Management element, as may have beendetermined by a procedure Determine_Relevance_Matrix( ) (Ref. FIG. 35).Selection 11323 of a matrix element that does not contain a blackdiamond symbol, or other suitable symbol as we disclose in reference toFIG. 43B, may exercise functionality such as to display a relevancevalue 11340 of 0.0, or other suitable indicator.

Regarding functionality that may be provided by an E2E relevanceinterface 11310 when an RFP-to-PD entry has been selected 11323, wedisclose that said interface may provide additional information using aPD-element detail section 11330 or an ST-element detail section 11340,whose functionality and operation may be similar to one another. Anelement detail section (such as a first section 11330 or a secondsection 11340) may present a label or description, or other relevantinformation, for said selected element, as shown in a PD-element detailsection by a first section component 11331 and a second sectioncomponent 11332, respectively. We disclose that a PD-element detailsection 11330 may include edit functionality 11333 for an end user toupdate PD element information, for example by editing the contents of aPD element label 11331 or PD element description 11332, or performingother similar updates. We disclose that functionality such as theability to update PD element information may be useful for an end user,for example, if a computed relevance value 11340 for a PD element doesnot agree with said end user's understanding of what an appropriaterelevance value ought to be, based for example on their knowledge as asubject matter expert.

In providing functionality such as the ability to review results in anE2E relevance section 11320, relevance value 11324, and PD 11330 and ST11340 element details, as well as being able to update PD elementinformation 11333, an end user may thus “tune” a PD description so thata PD work element may more effectively match an appropriate, relevant STwork element. We disclose that the functionality provided by such avalidation and refinement process may be effective for several reasons.

We disclose first that the information provided to an end user, such asby an ST-element detail section 11340, may include an ST element label(that identifies an ST work element class), and may include a detaileddescription of said work element. The information that is presented inan ST-element detail section 11340 thus may serve as a common“dictionary”, “ontology”, or other such representation, that defines aclass of work elements. The information such as provided in anST-element detail section 11340 may provide a PD owner with importantclues as to how to best describe a PD work element said PD owner believeis relevant to an ST work element; for example an end user may identifyspecific terms that may be advantageously included in a PD elementdescription, but which may have been inadvertently omitted when said PDwas entered into a relevance management system 1140 (such as via a PDdata entry process 2021).

We disclose second that, as we disclosed above without loss ofgenerality, the functionality such as provided by an E2E relevanceinterface 11310 may be used to support RFP template pre-processing11042. Thus, when an end user enters an RFP 2022 in a relevancemanagement system 1140, said user may use process similar to thatdisclosed in the preceding paragraph to “tune” an RFP element label anddescription to best match a relevant ST element. The process of enablingboth PD and RFP owners to potentially improve match results by tuning PDand RFP work-element descriptions to a common set of standardizedwork-element classes (as may be represented in the ST work elements),may reduce unfortunate and counterproductive “groping” that may occurduring automated matching, such as where a relevant PD element and arelevant RFP element may have used dissimilar terminology to describesimilar work, which may result in an erroneously low relevance scorebeing computed by a relevance management system 1140 between said twoelements. We disclose that a similar argument may be made, and addressedby a relevance management system 1140, in which dissimilar work elementsmay unfortunately have been described using similar terms, which mayresult in a “false positive” match. By providing functionality todisambiguate elements, for example using labels and descriptions of workelements in a PD and in an RFP, by using the process as we discloseabove and supported by functionality such as provided by an E2Erelevance interface illustrated in FIG. 113, a relevance managementsystem 1140 may improve efficacy of relevance matching, and thusincrease the value of a relevance management system 1140 to both acapability-providing 210 and a capability-seeking end user 211.

Relevance Relationships for Template Processing

FIG. 114 generally depicts relevance relationships useful for templateprocessing (Ref. FIG. 110), in accordance with an exemplary embodimentof the invention. For our use in a relevance management system 1140, wemay define relevance as a bidirectional, transitive relationshipanalogous to similarity. For example, if “Element 1 is similar toElement 2”, and “Element 2 is similar to Element 3”, then we may deducethat “Element 1 is similar to Element 3”. We may express such statementsas follows, where a symbol “

” represents a relevance, similarity or “related to” relationship:

If:

-   -   (1) Element 1        Element 2    -   (2) Element 2        Element 3

Then,

-   -   (3) Element 1        Element 3

We can rewrite (1) and (2) succinctly as:

-   -   (4) Element 1        Element 2        Element 3

From which result (3) also follows.

We disclose that Element 2 here serves as an intermediary; if Elements 1and 3 are both similar to Element 2, we can then deduce similaritybetween Elements 1 and Element 3. The functionality for computingrelevance using an intermediary (such as a standard template, as will bediscussed in reference to FIG. 110) is disclosed in a simplified form inreference to FIG. 114. In this example we would like to determine how anelement in Set 1 11410 may be related to an element in Set 3 11430, witha restriction (for expository purposes) that when we determine such arelationship we may not be able to access both Set 1 11410 and Set 311430 simultaneously. We can think of such a restriction as Set 1 11410and Set 3 11430 having different “owners”, who are not able to workdirectly with one another.

To facilitate such a process, we disclose that we may create anintermediary such as Set 2 11420, whose four elements have been selectedso that the domain they represent may encompass the domains of theelements in Set 1 11410 and Set 3 11430. For example, every element ofSet 1 11410 may be related to (i.e., identified as “similar to”) anelement in Set 2 11420; and similarly, every element of Set 3 11430 maybe related (i.e., identified as “similar to”) an element in Set 2 11420.Note that Set 2 11420 is indeed a “set”, and thus preferably does notcontain repeating (i.e., identical) elements. Finally, we note that Set2 11420 may be accessible simultaneously with Set 1 11410, and may alsobe accessible simultaneously with Set 3 11430.

We have used double-ended arrows in FIG. 114 to illustrate how elementsof Set 1 11410 may be related to Set 2 11420, as well as how elements ofSet 3 11430 may be related to Set 2 11420. For example, we can see thatelement “A” 11411 of Set 1 11410 is related to 11412 element “1” 11421of Set 2 11420; similarly, we can see that element “Z” 11431 of Set 311430 is related to 11432 element “1” 11421 of Set 2 11420. These tworelationships (Ref. 11412 and 11432) can be represented as:

-   -   (5) Element “A”        Element “1”        Element “Z”

Then, from (4) and (3) above we can “remove” the intermediary Element 1using transitivity, to write:

-   -   (6) Element “A”        Element “Z”

FIG. 114 illustrates the following relationships (which includes (5)from above):

-   -   (7) Element “A”        Element “1”        Element “Z”    -   (8) Element “B”        Element “2”        Element “X”    -   (9) Element “3”        Element “Y”    -   (10) Element “C”        Element “4”

If we restrict the relationships in (7) through (10) to those thatcontain elements from both Set 1 11410 and Set 3 11430, we are left withrelationships (7) and (8), to which we may apply (4) and (3) above toyield:

-   -   (11) Element “A”        Element “Z”    -   (12) Element “B”        Element “X”

The results above state that element “A” from Set 1 11410 is related toelement “Z” from Set 3 11430, and that element “B” from Set 1 11410 isrelated to element “X” from Set 3 11430, which is easily confirmed inFIG. 114.

Looking forward, we may relate the example in FIG. 114 to functionalityprovided by template processing such as illustrated in FIG. 110 bynoting that Set 1 11410 may correspond to an instance of a PD (such as aPD 11051); that Set 3 11430 may correspond to an instance of an RFP(such as an RFP 11052); and that intermediary Set 2 11420 may correspondto an instance of an ST (such as an ST 11030).

Furthermore, as we disclose in reference to FIG. 121A and FIG. 121Bbelow, for a tag-based alternative embodiment, relationships betweensets, such as between Set 2 11420 and Set 1 11410, may be viewedrepresenting “tagging, where for example an element from Set 1 (such asElement A 11411) has been “tagged” by a label, such as may come from anelement of Set 2 (such as Element 1 11421, which may represent a taghaving the value of “1”). Thus we disclose that in a tag-basedalternative embodiment, the relationships illustrated in FIG. 114 mayrepresent Element A 11411 as having been tagged with 11412 a “1” 11421,and similarly for the other elements as shown in FIG. 114.

Template-Based Match Processing

FIG. 115 generally depicts pseudo-code for a procedureTemplate_Based_Match( ) that we disclose, in accordance with anexemplary embodiment of the invention, that a relevance managementsystem 1140 may use to perform template-based match processing 11060 inFIG. 110.

Embodiment of the present invention may provide functionality such as wedisclose in reference to FIG. 115, FIG. 116, FIG. 117, and FIG. 118,which illustrate procedures and functions a relevance management system1140 may use to perform template-based match processing 11060,leveraging the transitive property of relevance as we disclose inreference to FIG. 114, and which we disclose may be formulated as amatrix product-like procedure in which the “product” operation may begeneralized to a range of functions (such as the exemplars illustratedin FIG. 116) that may be more suitable for relevance computation.

Regarding the functionality and operation of procedureTemplate_Based_Match( ) depicted in FIG. 115, we disclose that saidprocedure is illustrated as taking three arguments. A first argument isa matrix P, which may have been created, such as during PD templatepre-processing 11041, and which may have been produced by functionalitysuch as procedure Determine_Relevance_Matrix( ) (Ref. FIG. 35). A secondargument is a matrix R, which may have been created during RFP templatepre-processing 11042, and which also may have been produced byDetermine_Relevance_Matrix( ) (Ref. FIG. 35). And a third argument is afunction named Measure( ), which Template_Based_Match( ) may use whencomparing elements of matrices P and D, as we disclose below.

FIG. 117 (A-D) generally depicts exemplar execution of procedureTemplate_Based_Match( ) depicted in FIG. 115, in accordance with anexemplary embodiment of the invention, representing execution of saidprocedure using inputs from FIG. 114.

We first illustrate operation of procedure Template_Based_Match( ) (Ref.FIG. 115) using data from the example in FIG. 114. FIG. 117A representsargument P, which represents the relationships between the elements ofSet 1 11410 (corresponding to a first input 117A1), and the elements inSet 2 11420 (corresponding to a second input 117A4). We can see forexample in FIG. 114 that element A 11411 in Set 1 is related to 11412element 1 11421 in Set 2; correspondingly in FIG. 117A we can see thatelement A in a first set 117A2 is associated with identifier P1 in asecond set 117A3, whose row in matrix P 117A9 has a “1” in the columnassociated with identifier S1 117A6, which is associated with element 1117A5. The remaining two non-zero entries in the matrix P 117A9correspond to the relationships between B and 2, and C and 4,analogously.

For clarity, we disclose that entries in matrix P 117A9, matrix R 117B9,matrix RT 117C9, and matrix Rel 117D9 that do not contain a value (e.g.,are blank, here do not contain a “1”) represent a value of zero. Inaddition, we disclose that indicators such as “I INDEX”, “J INDEX”, and“K INDEX” that may appear in said figures represent the direction thatindices i, j, and k, respectively in procedure Template_Based_Match( )(Ref. FIG. 115) will traverse a matrix.

FIG. 117B represents argument R, which represents the relationshipsbetween the elements of Set 3 11430 (corresponding to a first input117B1), and the elements in Set 2 11420 (corresponding to a second input117B4). We can see for example in FIG. 114 that element Z 11431 in Set 3is related to 11432 element 1 11421 in Set 2; correspondingly in FIG.117B we can see that element Z in a set 117B2 is associated withidentifier R3 in 117B3, whose row in matrix R 117B9 has a “1” in thecolumn associated with identifier S1 117B6, which is associated withelement 1 117B5. The remaining two non-zero entries in the matrix P117A9 correspond to the relationships between Y and 3, and X and 2,analogously.

We disclose that, in the general case, the dimensions of thetwo-dimensional matrices P and R are n by s, and m by s, respectively,where: n may be the number of work elements in the PD work descriptorused by a procedure Determine_Relevance_Matrix( ) (Ref. FIG. 35) toproduce P; m may be the number of work elements in the RFP workdescriptor used by a procedure Determine_Relevance_Matrix( ) (Ref. FIG.35) to produce R; and s may be the number of work elements in the STwork descriptor used by a procedure Determine_Relevance_Matrix( ) (Ref.FIG. 35) in computing both P and R.

Looking ahead slightly, we can see in reference to FIG. 115 thatprocedure Template_Based_Match( ) uses three nested loops (havingindices, i, j, and k) to traverse matrices P and R, analogous to the waytwo conformant matrices may traversed in a classic matrix multiplication(i.e., matrix product) procedure. We can see that matrices P and R arenot conformant, i.e. the second dimension of P (namely, s) is not thesame as the first dimension of R (namely, m). As such, procedureTemplate_Based_Match( ) (Ref. FIG. 115) begins by taking the transposeof matrix R, naming the result RT. The transpose of R is illustrated inFIG. 117C, where essentially the rows in matrix R 117B9, along with theassociated identifiers 117B1, have become the columns in matrix RT117C9, along with the associated identifiers 117C4; and similarly thecolumns in matrix R 117B9, along with the associated identifiers 117B4,have become the rows in matrix RT 117C9, also along with the associatedidentifiers 117C1.

Procedure Template_Based_Match( ) (Ref. FIG. 115) next creates an newempty two-dimensional matrix named Rel (illustrated by a matrix 117D9 inFIG. 117D), whose dimensions correspond to the “product” of P and RT,namely n by m.

Next, Template_Based_Match( ) (Ref. FIG. 115) uses three nested loopswith indices, i, j, and k to traverse the P and RT matrices, calling afunction Measure( ) for each combination of P_(i,k) and RT_(k,j)elements, analogous to a matrix-product traversal. However, unlike astandard matrix-product traversal, here we disclose that we havegeneralized the operation performed on each P_(i,k) and RT_(k,j) pair,using a function Measure( ) to perform the generalized operation.

FIG. 116 (A-C) generally depict pseudo-code for functions Intersection(), High_Pass_Filtered_Average( ), and Product( ) that we disclose, inaccordance with an exemplary embodiment of the invention, that may beused in procedure Template_Based_Match( ) (depicted in FIG. 115) asinput argument Measure( ).

FIG. 116A, FIG. 116B, and FIG. 116C illustrate exemplar Measure( )functions that procedure Template_Based_Match( ) (Ref. FIG. 115) may useto provide functionality. We contemplate a broad range of functions thatmay be used for Measure( ), illustrating in FIG. 116A an exemplarfunction that implements the intersection (i.e., overlap) between tworanges of values; in FIG. 116B an exemplar function that essentiallyfilters out non-relevant values (illustrated here as values below anexemplar threshold value of 0.25, although we contemplate use of a broadrange of threshold values) by returning a value of zero, oralternatively returning the average of the two values for non-filteredvalues; and in FIG. 116C an exemplar product operation, which is similarto matrix multiplication. Those skilled in the art will recognize thatthe exemplar Measure( ) functions we disclose, as well as otherfunctions such as the “union”, “maximum”, “difference”, and so on for abroad range of mathematical functions, may be combined in a variety ofways, such as filtering combined with averaging as illustrated in FIG.116B in alternative embodiments, and such embodiments are intended to bewithin the scope of the present invention.

We illustrate in FIG. 117D the use as an exemplar of functionIntersection( ) (Ref. FIG. 116A) as the function passed toTemplate_Based_Match( ) (Ref. FIG. 115) as parameter Measure( ); the useof other functions is analogous. For all of the traversals of the i, j,and k indices in this example, at least one of the P_(i,j) and RT_(k,j)elements (from a matrix 117A9 in FIG. 117A and from a matrix 117C9 inFIG. 117C, respectively) are equal to zero, except for the case where{i=2, j=1, k=2} and {i=1, j=3, k=1}. For the cases where either P_(i,k)or RT_(k,j) is zero, the call to Intersection( ) (Ref. FIG. 116A) willreturn a value of zero, as it is the minimum of the two. For the caseswhere both P_(i,k) and RT_(k,j) are non zero (in this example theirvalues are “1”), the call to the Intersection( ) function (Ref. FIG.116A) will return a value of 1. We can see in FIG. 117D that indeed thetwo non-zero entries in matrix Rel 117D9, here both having a value of“1”, correspond to the two cases noted above, namely {i=2, j=1, k=2} and{i=1, j=3, k=1}. And, we can observe, by inspection of these twonon-zero entries in matrix Rel 117D9, that the matrix Rel 117D9indicates that element A is related to element Z, and that element B isrelated to element X, which we can confirm agree with the relevanceresults we disclosed above in reference to FIG. 114, indicating thatprocedure Template_Based_Match( ) depicted FIG. 115 has produced thecorrect result for this example.

At the completion of Template_Based_Match( ) (Ref. FIG. 115), theprocedure returns the matrix Rel. At the completion of template-basedmatch processing 11060, a relevance management system 1140 may save theresulting estimate of RFP-to-PD relevance, such as in a template-basedrelevance data store 11070.

FIG. 118 (A-D) generally depict exemplar execution of procedureTemplate_Based_Match( ) depicted in FIG. 115, in accordance with anexemplary embodiment of the invention, representing execution of saidprocedure using inputs from the extended example we have used throughoutthe specification of the present invention.

FIG. 118A, FIG. 118B, FIG. 118C, and FIG. 118D further illustrate thefunctionality and operation of template-based match processing 11060,and how a relevance management system 1140 may use functionality such asprovided by procedure Template_Based_Match( ) (Ref. FIG. 115) and afunction Measure( ), here again an exemplar function Intersection( )(Ref. FIG. 116A), to estimate the relevance of an RFP to a PD, usingdata from the extended example, where RFP ID is RFP001 and PD ID isPD001.

As with the example illustrated in FIG. 117A, FIG. 117B, FIG. 117C, andFIG. 117D, here too the matrices depicted in the figures correspond toP, R, RT, and REL matrices in FIG. 118A, FIG. 118B, FIG. 118C, and FIG.118D, respectively. For clarity of presentation, this example exercisesonly the first seven elements of the ST work descriptor 11115, whichhave been given identifiers “S1” through “S7” 11115, and whichcorrespond to a first array 118A2, a second array 118B2, and a thirdarray 118C1.

The PD used in this example contains the work descriptor shown in FIG.32, which includes a PD work descriptor 3215 whose elements areassociated with an array of identifiers 3225 that have the values “P8”through “P13”, and which correspond to a first array 118A1 and a secondarray 118D1, as part of the input P 118A3 and resulting Rel 118D3matrices.

The RFP used in this example has the work descriptor shown in FIG. 33,which includes a PD work descriptor 3315 whose elements are associatedwith an array of identifiers 3325 that have the values “R8” through“R14”, and which correspond to a first array 118B1, a second array118C2, and a third array 118D2, as part of the input R 118B3, RT 118C3,and resulting Rel 118D3 matrices.

The PD-to-ST relevance matrix values we disclose in FIG. 118A may havebeen produced by functionality such as provided by PD templatepre-processing 11041, which may have used Determine_Relevance_Matrix( )(Ref. FIG. 35). For the purposes of illustration, the matrix relevancevalues in P 118A3 are depicted as ascending values, starting with 0.70and ending at 0.75. This has been done to more easily trace these valuesthrough execution of Template_Based_Match( ) (Ref. FIG. 115), forclarity of explanation.

Similarly, the RFP-to-ST relevance matrix values we disclose in FIG.118B may have been produced by functionality such as provided by RFPtemplate pre-processing 11042, which may have usedDetermine_Relevance_Matrix( ) (Ref. FIG. 35). Again, for the purposes ofillustration, the matrix relevance values in R 118A3 are shown asascending values, starting with 0.80 and ending at 0.86. This too hasbeen done to more easily trace these values through the execution ofTemplate_Based_Match( ) (Ref. FIG. 115), for purposes of explanation.

FIG. 118C illustrates construction by Template_Based_Match( ) (Ref. FIG.115) of an RT matrix from an R matrix 118B3, whose construction isanalogous to that illustrated in FIG. 117B and FIG. 117C.

For clarity, we disclose that entries in matrix P 118A3, matrix R 118B3,matrix RT 118C3, and matrix Rel 118D3 that do not contain a value (e.g.,are blank) represent a value of zero. In addition, we disclose thatindicators such as “I INDEX”, “J INDEX”, and “K INDEX” that may appearin said figures disclose the direction that indices i, j, and k,respectively, in procedure Template_Based_Match( ) (Ref. FIG. 115) willtraverse a matrix.

In reference to FIG. 118D we disclose the matrix Rel 118D3 and theresults of the iteration by Template_Based_Match( ) (Ref. FIG. 115)through the i, j, and k indices and the calls to a Measure( ) function,here again using the exemplar Intersection( ) function (Ref. FIG. 116A).As with the previous example, we disclose that for many combinations ofthe i, j, and k indices, either P_(i,k) or RT_(k,j) is equal to zero,and thus the call to the Intersection( ) function (Ref. FIG. 116A) willreturn a zero as the minimum, resulting in the corresponding Rel_(ij)entry being assigned a zero value.

FIG. 119 generally depicts exemplar execution values for procedureTemplate_Based_Match( ) depicted in FIG. 115 using ST, PD, and RFPinputs, in accordance with an exemplary embodiment of the invention,representing execution of said procedure using inputs from the extendedexample we have used throughout the specification of the presentinvention. Specifically, FIG. 119 illustrates the state of severalvariables and values 11901 during execution of Template_Based_Match( )(Ref. FIG. 115), in particular for those iterations of the i, j, and kindices in which both of the P_(i,k) 11903 and RT_(k,j) 11904 values arenon-zero. A column 11905 shows application of an exemplar Intersection() function (Ref. FIG. 116A), namely the result of a call to Minimum( ),and a column 11906 discloses the resulting value assigned to theRel_(i,j) matrix entry. We can see, for example that when the i, j, andk indices 11902 equal 2, 7, and 2, respectively (a shown in a row11910), that Template_Based_Match( ) (Ref. FIG. 115) will be traversingthe P and RT matrices with P_(2,2)=0.71 and RT_(2,7)=0.82, respectively.The call to the Minimum( ) within Template_Based_Match( ) (Ref. FIG.115), will return the minimum of these two values, namely 0.71, whichwill be assigned to the Rel_(2,7) as shown in column 11906. Computationof the remaining values for Rel_(i,j) 11906 is analogous.

Relevance Advisor Processing

We disclose that the results such as computed by a template-based matchprocessing 11060 represent an estimate of the relevance of an RFP to aPD, as computed by a relevance management system 1140 from the relevanceof an RFP to an ST 11051 and the relevance of a PD to said ST 11052, asmay be determined during embodiments such as RFP template 11042 and PDtemplate 11041 pre-processing. Indeed, we may compare an example of RFPto PD relevance results computed by direct match processing 2040 withresults computed by template-based match processing 11070, by viewingexemplar matrix 3732 and exemplar matrix 118D3, respectively. Here wecan see that the said matrices have produced similar but differentresults, which may be the result of a number of factors. In a real-worldimplementation of a relevance management system 1140, it may be likelythat direct match processing 2040 produces results with higher efficacy,as the matching process works directly with PD and RFP instances, ratherthan through an intermediary, such as an ST.

However, we disclose that template-based match processing 11060 may alsohave significant advantages over direct match processing 2040. One ofthese advantages may be processing speed or efficiency, as we observethat procedure Template_Based_Match( ) (Ref. FIG. 115), and the Measure() functions it may call, such as exemplars Intersection( ) (Ref. FIG.116A), High_Pass_Filtered_Average( ) (Ref. FIG. 116B), and Product (Ref.FIG. 116C), are computationally relatively lightweight, consistingprimarily simple comparisons, as opposed to more computationallyintensive TF-IDF, LSA, or other document similarity matching techniques,now known or hereafter developed, that may be used in direct matchprocessing 2040. In effect, the “hard work” of matching a PD or an RFPto an ST, performed during processing such as PD 11041 and RFP 11042template pre-processing, need only be performed once per PD or RFP, andthe ensuing m calls to Template_Based_Match( ) (Ref. FIG. 115) performedto match that PD to the m RFPs (and the n matches performed to matchthat RFP to the n PDs) may be performed using a computationally lighterweight process, such as template-based match processing 11060. In areal-world implementation, a template-based match processing 11060 for aPD and an RFP may be one, two, or more orders of magnitude fastercomputationally than direct match processing 2040.

To take advantage of such computational efficiencies we disclose that arelevance management system 1140 may provide functionality such asperforming relevance advisor processing 11080, and via such advisorprocessing may interact bi-directionally 11090 with a direct-matchingbased relevance processing, as also illustrated in FIG. 20).

We disclose that the relevance results that may be produced bytemplate-based match processing 11060, and may be stored in atemplate-based relevance data store 11070, may be structurally orfunctionally equivalent to relevance results such as produced by directmatch processing 2040, and thus may also be stored without difficulty,such as in a relevance data store 2045. As such, RFP-to-PD relevanceresults stored in a template-based relevance data store 11070 may beprocessed by a relevance management system 1140 in the same way as thosestored in a relevance data store 2045, which may include, but is notlimited to, performing ETL processing 2060 and storing such results in arelevance cube 2070, said results may be indicated as having beenproduced via template-based match processing 11060, as opposed to havingbeen produced via direct match processing 2040, or another method. Assuch, relevance results from these two processing methods (direct matchprocessing 2040 and template-based match processing 11060) may beidentified and disambiguated by a relevance management system 1140, andboth may be stored in a common data store 2050 and processedequivalently by ETL processing 2060. Using the ETL processing 2060relevance results produced via template-based match processing 11060, arelevance management system 1140 may be able to access and compareaggregated relevance results (i.e., relevance values) of RFP-to-PDrelevance values produced via these two different methods (e.g., directmatch processing 2040 and template-based match processing 11060 in FIG.110).

Functionality that is provided in a relevance management system 1140such as relevance advisor processing 11080, which is part of templateprocessing 2050, may collaborate with a controller module 1142 indetermining when direct match processing 2040 may be advantageouslyperformed for a new PD or RFP that has been entered in a relevancemanagement system 1140, which may be stored such as in a PD 2031 or RFP2032 data store. For example, if an RFP-to-PD relevance value estimatedby template-based match processing 11060 is below a specified thresholdfor an RFP and PD, relevance advisor processing 11080 may instruct acontroller module 1142 to defer or cancel direct match processing 2040for said RFP and PD pair, as the likelihood is low of direct matchprocessing 2040 identifying a good match when template-based matchprocessing 11060 did not identify a good match for said pair. Bydeferring or canceling such un-promising direct match processing (whichmay be computationally expensive), a relevance management system 1140may be able to reduce the computational load of a relevance managementsystem 1140, or improve throughput or turnaround time for PD and RFPpairs that are more likely to produce higher matches, by prioritizingdirect match processing 2040 for said PD and RFP pairs that receivedhigher match value estimates during template-based match processing11060.

In addition, relevance advisor processing 11080 may collaborate withrelevance quality control processing 2055 to perform a check on theefficacy of a result produced by direct match processing 2040, ascompared to a result produced by template-based match processing 11060.For example, we disclose that a match estimate result for a PD and anRFP from template-based match processing 11060 may be a good indicatorof an expected match value that may be produced by direct matchprocessing 2040; for example, a PD and RFP that received a high matchestimate via template-based match processing 11060 ought to produce ahigh match value during direct match processing 2040, and conversely fora low match estimate. We disclose that using such logic, relevancequality control processing 2055 may compare such results to identifydivergent cases, for multiple purposes.

We disclose that if relevance quality control processing 2055 identifiesa divergence between results of template-based and direct matchprocessing that exceeds a threshold, which may be specified by a user,for a PD and RFP pair, a relevance management system 1140 may defersubsequent processing of said pair, for example by not sending therelevance results of said pair on to ETL processing 2060. Performingsuch action may improve the quality of final results produced by arelevance management system 1140, for example by halting subsequentprocessing of erroneous matches, and thereby maintaining high dataquality. When relevance quality control processing 2055 identifies sucha said divergence, a relevance management system 1140 may notifyaffected users, such as a PD owner 1110, an RFP owner 1130, or anadministrative user 1120, so that corrective action may be taken.Through functionality provided by such processes that includecombinations of identifying, capturing, understanding, and correctingsuch said divergences, affected users such as a PD owner 1110, an RFPowner 1130, or an administrative user 1120, may be able to improve theirskill in using a relevance management system 1140, of may facilitatefurther improvements to said system itself.

Implementation of Invention and an Embodiment

Computer-Based Device with a Computer-Based Product

The present invention is implemented on a computer-based device and witha computer-based product. The computer-based device may be a pluralityof devices connected over a network. A discussion on how computers andnetwork work is presented in “How Computers Work,” 10th Edition, RonWhite, McMillan Computer Publishing, 2014; as well as in “Encyclopediaof Computer Science,” 4th Edition, Anthony Ralston (Editor), Edwin D.Reilly (Editor), and David Hemmendinger (Editor), Nature PublishingGroup, 2000, of which the entire contents of both is incorporated byreference.

We disclose in reference to FIG. 120 a block diagram of a generalpurpose computer system that is operable to be used to execute one ormore computer programs implementing the embodiments described herein,including steps described herein. It will be apparent to one of ordinaryskill in the art that a more sophisticated computer system is operableto be used. Furthermore, components can be added or removed from thecomputer system 12000 to provide the desired functionality.

The computer system 12000 includes one or more processors, such asprocessor 12002, providing an execution platform for executing software.Commands and data from the processor 12002 are communicated over acommunication bus 12006. The computer system 12000 also includescomputer readable storage mediums including a main memory 12004, such asa Random Access Memory (RAM), where software is resident during runtime,and a secondary storage 12008. The secondary storage 12008 includes, forexample, a hard disk drive or a removable storage drive representing afloppy diskette drive, a magnetic tape drive, a compact disk drive,etc., or a nonvolatile memory where a copy of the software is stored. Inone example, the secondary storage 12008 also includes ROM (read onlymemory), EPROM (erasable, programmable ROM), EEPROM (electricallyerasable, programmable ROM). The computer system 12000 includes one ormore input/output (I/O) devices 12012, such as a display, keyboard, amouse, a stylus, and the like. A network interface 12010, wired orwireless, is provided for communicating with other computer systems.

One or more of the steps of the methods described herein and other stepsdescribed herein and one or more of the components of the systemsdescribed herein may be implemented as software code stored on acomputer readable medium, such as the memory or secondary storage, andexecuted on a computer system, for example, by a processor. For example,the steps of the embodiments may exist as software program(s) comprisedof program instructions in source code, object code, executable code orother formats for performing some of the steps. Any of the above may beembodied on a computer readable medium, which include storage devices.Examples of suitable computer readable storage devices includeconventional computer system RAM (random access memory), ROM (read onlymemory), EPROM (erasable, programmable ROM), EEPROM (electricallyerasable, programmable ROM), and magnetic or optical disks or tapes.

ALTERNATIVE EMBODIMENTS Alternative Embodiment 1

We have disclosed in reference to FIG. 11 how we contemplate anembodiment in which one or more proxies may perform the roles andactivities associated with users (such as a first 1110, second 1130, orthird 1120 user in FIG. 11). We have also disclosed in reference to FIG.24, FIG. 26, and FIG. 31 how we contemplate an embodiment in which anend user may create such an ST, PD, or RFP instance, such as externallyto a relevance management system 1140, such as in a file, and have saidinstance imported directly into a relevance management system 1140 by acorresponding data entry process (such as a first 2021, second 2020, orthird 2022 process, respectively, in FIG. 20), and that thefunctionality of such data entry may be performed by web services andother service-oriented methods and services over an Internet or network.In addition to such embodiments, we contemplate more broadly thefunctionality that may be provided in an alternative embodiment in whichan input and output activity associated with a relevance managementsystem 1140 may be performed via a web service or other method orservices, such as a “cloud” or distributed service, over an Internet ornetwork. Such embodiments may include, but are not limited to,web-service, remote, or local type access to all data stores, which mayinclude, but is not limited to, a first 2030, second 2031, third 2032,or fourth 2045 store in FIG. 20; a first 11030, second 11031, third11032, fourth 11051, fifth 11052, or sixth 11070 store in FIG. 110; ordata cube embodiments (which may include, but is not limited to, a cube2070 in FIG. 20). In addition we contemplate an embodiment where saidaccess to said data stores or data cubes may include, but is not limitedto, functionality to create, read, update, or delete (CRUD) data in saiddata stores or data cubes, and that said access to said data stores ordata cubes may be performed by an intermediary service, rather than viadirect access to said data stores or data cubes. Those skilled in theart will recognize that such an embodiment may employ techniques such asa service-oriented architecture (SOA) or an enterprise service bus(ESB), and such embodiments are intended to be within the scope of thepresent invention.

Alternative Embodiment 2

We also contemplate an embodiment in which CRUD or other type of accessto said data stores and data cubes may be used for a broad range ofpurposes, which may include, but are not limited to, exporting data froma relevance management system 1140, and importing data into a relevancemanagement system 1140. We furthermore contemplate an embodiment wheresaid exporting and importing of data may be used to facilitateperforming a processing step in a relevance management system 1140,which may, for example, involve exporting data from a relevancemanagement system 1140, performing processing of said exported datausing alternate or comparable processing, and possibly importing intosaid system embodiment a result produced by said alternate or comparableprocessing. We contemplate that said processing step in an embodimentmay include, but is not limited to, data entry processing (Ref 2020,2021, or 2022), direct match processing 2040, ETL processing 2060,capability determination processing 2080, RFP relevance processing 2085,team construction processing 2090, or quality control processing 2055,as well as template processing (Ref. 11041 or 11042), template-basedmatch processing 11060, or relevance advisor processing 11080. As anexample, we contemplate an embodiment in which relevance results (forexample, such as may be stored in embodiments such as a relevance datastore 2045 or relevance cube 2070 may be provided to external peer ordownstream services, which may incorporate said relevance results tocreate value-added services or offerings for end users (Ref 1110 and1130) or other entities.

Alternative Embodiment 3

Further regarding the use of proxies that may perform roles andactivities on behalf of end users (Ref 1110 and 1130), we contemplate anembodiment in which a user may operate within a relevance managementsystem 1140 as a capability-seeking end user 1130, to identifycapability-providing end users 1110 who may advantageously serve as aprime contractor or a subcontractor, such as with respect to a specificRFP. For example, such an entity may operate to facilitate the formationof teams, such as by identifying potential team members, such as bytheir experience and capabilities, and potentially brokeringcommunication between or among said potential team members, tofacilitate team formation, possibly as a value-added service.

Alternative Embodiment 4

Further regarding the formation of teams, such as we disclose inreference to FIG. 97, we contemplate an embodiment with enhancedrecommendation functionality, which may extend functionality we discloseabove as represented by “Recommendation” 9734. Said enhancedrecommendation functionality may operate in multiple ways, for example,to identify a most advantageous (perhaps, optimal) set of PDs (from acollection of PDs) that an end user may select, in order to maximize ascore with respect to a criteria, such as maximizing said end user's PDowner relevance score. (For example, identify a set of PDs, whose numbermay be bounded, that maximize a PD owner's relevance score; said set ofPDs may represent the PDs that a PD owner should submit to maximize aproposal evaluation score.) We contemplate a second type of enhancedrecommendation functionality, which may build upon the first enhancedrecommendation functionality just disclosed, in which a relevancemanagement system 1140 may provide recommendations regarding a mostadvantageous team that an end user may construct, which too may maximizea score with respect to a criteria, such as maximizing said team'srelevance score. (For example, identify a set of PD owners andcorresponding PDs, either of whose number may be bounded, that maximizesa team's overall relevance score.) We contemplate a broad range ofmulti-objective optimization techniques that may be used to provide suchenhanced recommendation functionality in alternative embodiments, andsuch embodiments are intended to be within the scope of the presentinvention.

Alternative Embodiment 5

While the embodiments illustrated in FIG. 20 and FIG. 110 focus ondirect match processing and template-based match processing,respectively, we contemplate an embodiment in which a controller module1142 may enable a PD and an RFP pair, such as may be stored in a PD 2031or an RFP 2032 data store, to bypass direct match processing, and whichmay result in an “unmatched” relevance result being placed in a datastore, such as, but not limited to, a relevance data store 2045. Wecontemplate that an end user may be able to use an element-to-element(E2E) relevance interface 11310 to view, update, and save such saidunmatched (or, matched) relevance result, which may include, but is notlimited to creating, deleting, or otherwise updating associations 11352,such as represented by an exemplar black diamond, or other suitableindicator such as we disclose in reference to FIG. 43B, indicating thata PD work element 11321 is relevant to an RFP work element 11322, andwhich may include providing a relevance value 11324, or updating a PDelement 11333, or other element. In effect, the functionality disclosedabove will enable an alternative embodiment in which an end user maymanually create (or update) in a relevance management system 1140 anRFP-to-PD relevance result, that a relevance management system 1140 maysubsequently further process, for example by performing ETL processing2060 for said RFP-to-PD relevance result. As a result, an end user mayexercise embodiments such as capability determination processing 2080,RFP relevance processing 2085, or team construction processing 2090using an RFP-to-PD relevance result that has been manually created (ormanually updated).

Alternative Embodiment 6

Although the specification of the present invention disclose asub-descriptor, such as a work descriptor (e.g., a first descriptor 2515or a second descriptor 3015), as comprised of multiple elements(organized hierarchically, or otherwise), in a relevance managementsystem 1140 said descriptor may contain zero, one, or more elements(organized hierarchically, or otherwise). In this way, we contemplate anembodiment in which, for example, a work descriptor for a PD 410 or anRFP 420, or a portion of said PD or RFP, such as a SOW 421, may becomprised of a single work element representing a whole, rather thancomprised of a collection of work elements whose sum represents a whole.As a result, for example, a relevance management system 1140 may be ableto perform relevance processing (such as illustrated in FIG. 2085, forexample) for an RFP and a PD that may match individual RFP work elementsto a PD in its entirety, or may match an RFP in its entirety toindividual PD work elements, or may match an RFP in its entirety to a PDin its entirety. Such embodiments are intended to be within the scope ofthe present invention.

Alternative Embodiment 7

FIG. 121A and FIG. 121B generally depict tag-based Project Descriptorssub-descriptor for an exemplar ST and PD, respectively, in accordancewith an exemplary embodiment of the invention. We have disclosed the useof a standard template (ST), such as in reference to FIG. 23 and FIG.111, within a relevance management system 1140, for multiple purposes.For example, we have disclosed above the use of an ST in simplifying thePD and RFP data entry process and corresponding classification of a PDor RFP, such as with respect to identifying a customer associated withsaid PD or RFP. (For example, the selection of “FSA” as illustrated inFIG. 27 associates an exemplar PD with a customer that is of type“Government, Federal, USDA, and FSA”.)

We disclose that a Project Descriptor, which may represent an ST, PD, orRFP, or a sub-descriptor of which it is comprised, may be represented asa set or collection of “tags” or “tag nodes”, or a set of said set oftags or tag nodes. This is illustrated in FIG. 121A, in which we haverepresented the customer descriptor 2314 illustrated in FIG. 23 as aset-based ST customer descriptor 121A10, which contains tag nodes for“Government” 121A11, “Federal” 121A12, and so on through “Commercial”121A13. We disclose that a “tag” associated with a tag node mayrepresent a label for said node; and that a tag node may also have adescription associated with said tag node, as well as other fields.Using such tag-based representation, which may correspond with anon-tag-based representation, we disclose that an ST may enable an enduser to “tag” a PD or an RFP, with results that are analogous to andalso more general than, the selection and identification process wedisclose in reference to FIG. 27. For example, we illustrate in FIG.121B a tag-based PD customer descriptor that corresponds to a PDcustomer descriptor 2513 in FIG. 25. Here a user has “tagged” the PDcustomer with tags for “Government” 121B11, “Federal” 121B12, “USDA”121B13, and “FSA” 121A13, which correspond to the customer descriptorelements in 2513 in FIG. 25, although a user may have alternativelytagged the customer with a subset of such tags, such as only “Federal”121B12, or “FSA” 121A13, or some other combination. We have furtherdisclosed above the use of an ST in facilitating template-based matchprocessing 11060, where an ST may serve as an intermediary. Here too wenow disclose that the association of an element of a PD or an RFP withan element of an ST (such as we disclose in reference to FIG. 113) maybe viewed as a PD or an RFP as having been “tagged” with an identifier,such as may be associated with an ST. (For example, the PD “ConstructionPhase” element in 11321 may be viewed as having being “tagged” with a“Development” identifier from an ST 11322, with the “tag” associationrepresented by the presence of the exemplar black diamond indicator thatrelates these two items, as shown.) Thus we disclose that an ST mayrepresent, in an alternative embodiment, a collection of “tags”,specified a priori or determined dynamically, such as by a user, thatmay be associated with a PD or an RFP, and that such tag-basedembodiments, which may be used such as to facilitate data entry ortemplate-based match processing (such as we disclose in reference toFIG. 110), are intended to be within the scope of the present invention.

Alternative Embodiment 8

In the specification of the present invention, we disclosesubcontractor's typical role in a relevance management system 1140 asbeing that of a PD provider 210. In the specification of the presentinvention, including in reference to FIG. 4, we have disclosed atwo-tiered teaming process, namely where a prime contractor (at a firstlevel) may lead a team of subcontractors (at a second level). Thoseskilled in the art will recognize that teaming may involve anarbitrarily deep number of levels, where for example a subcontractorthat is “subbing” to a prime contractor may in fact represent a team ofsubcontractors (who are in effect sub-subcontractors, with respect to aprime contractor), one or more of whom could also represent a team ofsubcontractors (who in effect would become, sub-sub-subcontractors to aprime contractor), and so on. For clarity of presentation in thespecification of the present invention, we have disclosed an embodimentthat involves two levels, namely a prime contractor at a highest leveland a subcontractor at a secondary level; however, we contemplate analternative embodiment that supports an arbitrarily deep number oflevels. An embodiment may enable said arbitrarily deep number of levelsin a variety of ways, which may include, but are not limited to, the usewithin a relevance management system 1140 of end users having multipleroles, as well as aggregation across teaming. For example, wecontemplate an embodiment in which: a subcontractor may serve in a roleas a “prime contractor” (such as a user 1130), which may includeproviding as input to a relevance management system 1140 a“subcontractor RFP” (analogous to an RFP 420); a potentialsub-subcontractor (as disclosed above) may serve in a role as a“subcontractor” (such as a user 1110); and functionality that may beprovided using roll-up-by-team (such as may be performed by a processingstep S541) applied across team dimensions (such as a first dimension5411 or a second dimension 5411, which may correspond to Level 1 in FIG.21). In an alternative embodiment a first subcontractor may aggregateexperience and capabilities of a second subcontractor. In effect, insuch an embodiment, a first subcontractor may identify and construct afirst team (at a first level) that comprises a second subcontractor (ata second level); a prime contractor may then identify and construct asecond team (at a first level) that comprises a third subcontractor (ata second level); said third subcontractor may be a team, such as thefirst team constructed by the first subcontractor; and analogously foradditional levels. Such embodiments are intended to be within the scopeof the present invention.

Alternative Embodiment 9

We contemplate an alternative embodiment of a relevance managementsystem 1140 in which an end user (Ref. 1110 and 1130) may specify orrestrict access to a PD or an RFP with which said end user isassociated, within a relevance management system 1140. For example, acapability-seeking end user 1130 that also operates as acapability-providing end user 1110 may not wish to make “publiclyavailable” a PD with which said user is associated, but rather may wishsaid PD to only be visible or accessible within a relevance managementsystem 1140 to said user, or other such restrictive set of users. Inthis way, said user would be able to more discreetly identify potentialteam members whose capabilities and experience complement those of saiduser, without said user having to disclose said user's capabilities andexperience to other users. We contemplate an embodiment in which usersmay be provided fine-grained control of access to projects with whichthey are associated in a relevance management system 1140, and suchembodiments are intended to be within the scope of the presentinvention.

Alternative Embodiment 10

We contemplate an embodiment of a relevance management system 1140 inwhich match results are determined and estimated not only between an RFPand a PD (i.e., RFP-to-PD relevance), but also between a first andsecond RFP (i.e., RFP-to-RFP relevance), a first and second PD (PD-to-PDrelevance), as well as between a first and second ST (i.e., ST-to-STrelevance). For example, said RFP-to-RFP relevance results may behelpful in identifying a previous RFP that is similar to a current RFP;such information may be of value to a capability-seeking end user, whomay have prepared a proposal in response to said previous RFP, and thusmay advantageously use content from said previous proposal in respondingto said current RFP. Such embodiments are intended to be within thescope of the present invention.

Alternative Embodiment 11

We contemplate an embodiment of a relevance management system 1140 whoseinputs are not from the contracting domain, and which for example maynot used for the purpose of helping to prepare a proposal in response toan RFP. We contemplate broader application of a relevance managementsystem 1140 to domains in which aggregated capabilities may beadvantageously matched to meet requirements, including aggregatedrequirements. For example, such alternative embodiments may include, butare not limited to, identifying a team of personnel to meet a project'srequirement, such as based on the cumulative experience and capabilitiesof said personnel, such as may have been acquired through workexperience, education, or other methods. An alternative embodiment mayinclude matching products or services that may be provided by one ormore entities, such as companies or other organizations, to therequirements for products or services, such as may be associated withone or more entities, such as consumers. Such embodiments are intendedto be within the scope of the present invention.

While the embodiments have been described with reference to examples,those skilled in the art will be able to make various modifications tothe described embodiments without departing from the scope of theclaimed embodiments.

Although the invention has been described in terms of the embodimentsdisclosed herein, those skilled in the art will appreciate manymodifications that may be made without departing from the true spiritand scope of the invention. All such modifications are intended to beincluded within the scope of the claims appended hereto.

Thus, specific systems and methods of to identify, aggregate, navigate,validate, recommend, and broker relevant experience and team membercapabilities for proposals have been disclosed. It should be apparent,however, to those skilled in the art that many more modificationsbesides those already described are possible without departing from theinventive concepts herein. The inventive subject matter, therefore, isnot to be restricted except in the spirit of the disclosure. Moreover,in interpreting the disclosure, all terms should be interpreted in thebroadest possible manner consistent with the context. In particular, theterms “comprises” and “comprising” should be interpreted as referring toelements, components, or steps in a non-exclusive manner, indicatingthat the referenced elements, components, or steps may be present, orutilized, or combined with other elements, components, or steps that arenot expressly referenced.

1. A non-transitory computer readable medium including code that isexecuted by a computer system comprising one or more processors, a mainmemory, a secondary storage, a communications bus, one or more input oroutput devices, and a network interface to perform a method of managingrelevance of a plurality of request for proposal (RFP) documents withrespect to a plurality of project description (PD) documents, saidplurality of RFP documents stored in a data store, the methodcomprising: receiving using at least one of said input devices, saidcommunications bus, or said network interface a PD document; creatingusing said one or more processors a PD-document decomposition bydecomposing said PD document into PD segments; establishing using saidone or more processors hierarchical relationships for said PD-documentdecomposition comprising contains-as-a-segment relationships,is-a-segment-of relationships, or both said relationships between saidPD document and said PD segments; determining using said one or moreprocessors an RFP-document-to-PD-segment relevance for an RFP documentfrom said plurality of RFP documents and said PD segments using documentsimilarity processing and a metric, wherein said determining saidRFP-document-to-PD-segment relevance comprises creating a relevancematrix R₁ of dimensions 1 by M where M is a number of said PD segments,and populating each element R₁[1, m] of said relevance matrix R₁ with arelevance value produced by said document similarity processing and saidmetric that represents a similarity of said RFP document to acorresponding PD segment m of said PD segments; aggregating using saidone or more processors said RFP-document-to-PD-segment relevance by saidhierarchical relationships for said PD-document decomposition to producean RFP-to-PD relevance, wherein said aggregating comprises performing asummation by said dimension M of said element R₁[1, m] relevance valuesof said relevance matrix R₁; and transmitting using at least one of saidoutput devices, said communications bus, or said network interface saidRFP-to-PD relevance, said RFP-document-to-PD-segment relevance, or bothsaid relevances to an originator of said PD document.
 2. The computerreadable medium of claim 1, wherein determining theRFP-document-to-PD-segment relevance further comprises: creating usingsaid one or more processors an RFP-document decomposition by decomposingsaid RFP document into RFP segments; establishing using said one or moreprocessors hierarchical relationships for said RFP-documentdecomposition comprising contains-as-a-segment relationships,is-a-segment-of relationships, or both said relationships between saidRFP document and said RFP segments; determining using said one or moreprocessors an RFP-segment-to-PD-segment relevance for an PD segment ofsaid PD-document decomposition and an RFP segment of said RFP-documentdecomposition using said document similarity processing and said metric,wherein said determining said RFP-segment-to-PD-segment relevancecomprises creating a second relevance matrix R₂ of dimensions N by Mwhere N is a number of said RFP segments in said RFP-documentdecomposition and M is the number of said PD segments, and populatingeach element R₂[n, m] of said relevance matrix R₂ with a relevance valueproduced by said document similarity processing and said metric thatrepresents a similarity of an RFP segment n of said RFP segments andsaid PD segment m of said PD segments; aggregating using said one ormore processors said RFP-segment-to-PD-segment relevance of said RFPdocument by said hierarchical relationships for said RFP-documentdecomposition to produce said RFP-document-to-PD-segment relevance,wherein said aggregating said RFP-segment-to-PD-segment relevancecomprises performing a summation by said dimension N of said elementR₂[n, m] relevance values of said relevance matrix R₂ to produce saidrelevance matrix R₁; and transmitting using at least one of said outputdevices, said communications bus, or said network interface saidRFP-document-to-PD-segment relevance to said originator of said PDdocument.
 3. The computer readable medium of claim 2, whereindetermining the RFP-segment-to-PD-segment relevance further comprises:determining using said one or more processors said relevance using saiddocument similarity processing, said metric, and a threshold metric; andusing said one or more processors and said threshold metric such thatwhen said RFP-segment-to-PD-segment relevance falls below a level ofsaid threshold metric, said RFP-segment-to-PD-segment relevance isconsidered to indicate an absence of similarity.
 4. The computerreadable medium of claim 2, wherein aggregating theRFP-segment-to-PD-segment relevance of the RFP document by theRFP-document decomposition to produce the RFP-document-to-PD-segmentrelevance further comprises: disaggregating using said one or moreprocessors said aggregated RFP-document-to-PD-segment relevance resultinto said aggregated result's constituent components and transmittingusing at least one of said output devices, said communications bus, orsaid network interface said disaggregated RFP-document-to-PD-segmentrelevance to said originator of said PD document.
 5. The computerreadable medium of claim 2, wherein aggregating theRFP-segment-to-PD-segment relevance further comprises: ranking usingsaid RFP-segment-to-PD-segment relevance said RFP segment from said RFPdocument using said one or more processors.
 6. The computer readablemedium of claim 1, wherein determining the RFP-document-to-PD-segmentrelevance further comprises: determining using said one or moreprocessors said relevance using said document similarity processing,said metric, and a threshold metric; and using said one or moreprocessors and said threshold metric such that when saidRFP-document-to-PD-segment relevance falls below a level of saidthreshold metric, said RFP-document-to-PD-segment relevance isconsidered to indicate an absence of similarity.
 7. The computerreadable medium of claim 1, wherein aggregating theRFP-document-to-PD-segment relevance by the PD-document decomposition toproduce the RFP-to-PD relevance further comprises: disaggregating usingsaid one or more processors said aggregated RFP-to-PD relevance resultinto said aggregated result's constituent components; and transmittingusing at least one of said output devices, said communications bus, orsaid network interface said disaggregated RFP-to-PD relevance to saidoriginator of said PD document.
 8. The computer readable medium of claim1, wherein managing the relevance of the plurality of RFP documents withrespect to the plurality of PD documents further comprises: associatingusing said one or more processors an attribute with one or moredocuments comprising said plurality of RFP documents; and using said oneor more processors and said attribute to filter a document from saidplurality using said one or more processors to select for considerationor eliminate said document from consideration when managing saidrelevance.
 9. The computer readable medium of claim 1, wherein managingthe relevance of the plurality of RFP documents with respect to theplurality of PD documents further comprises: associating using said oneor more processors an ownership attribute with one or more documentscomprising said plurality of RFP documents; aggregating using said oneor more processors said RFP-to-PD relevance by said ownership attributeto produce an aggregated RFP-owner-to-PD relevance, wherein saidaggregating said RFP-to-PD relevance by said ownership attributecomprises performing a summation of RFP-to-PD relevance values of saidone-or-more documents having said ownership attribute; and transmittingusing at least one of said output devices, said communications bus, orsaid network interface said aggregated RFP-owner-to-PD relevance to saidoriginator of said PD document.
 10. The computer readable medium ofclaim 9, wherein aggregating the RFP-to-PD relevance by the ownershipattribute to produce the aggregated RFP-owner-to-PD relevance furthercomprises: disaggregating using said one or more processors saidaggregated RFP-owner-to-PD relevance result into said aggregatedresult's constituent components; and transmitting using at least one ofsaid output devices, said communications bus, or said network interfacesaid disaggregated RFP-owner-to-PD relevance to said originator of saidPD document.
 11. The computer readable medium of claim 1, whereinaggregating the RFP-document-to-PD-segment relevance by saidhierarchical PD-document relationships to produce the RFP-to-PDrelevance further comprises: ranking using said one or more processorssaid RFP document from said plurality of RFP documents by at least oneof: said aggregated RFP-to-PD relevance, or saidRFP-document-to-PD-segment relevance.
 12. The computer readable mediumof claim 1, wherein managing the relevance of the plurality of RFPdocuments with respect to a plurality of PD documents further comprises:associating using said one or more processors an attribute with one ormore documents comprising said plurality of RFP documents, saidplurality of PD documents, or both said pluralities, wherein saidattribute denotes ownership of said one or more documents by a party;and communicating using said one or more processors and at least one ofsaid input devices, said output devices, said communications bus, orsaid network interface information relating to said relevance between afirst party associated with a document from said plurality of RFPdocuments and a second party associated with a document from saidplurality of PD documents.
 13. The computer readable medium of claim 12,wherein communicating information relating to the relevance between saidfirst party and said second party further comprises: brokering usingsaid one or more processors of said information relating to saidrelevance between said first party and said second party.
 14. Thecomputer readable medium of claim 1, wherein aggregating theRFP-document-to-PD-segment relevance by the PD-document decomposition toproduce the RFP-to-PD relevance further comprises: receiving using atleast one of said input devices, said communications bus, or saidnetwork interface a weights matrix; and using said weights matrix toproportionally scale using said one or more processors a relativeimportance of an individual RFP-document-to-PD-segment relevance valuewhen aggregating said RFP-document-to-PD-segment relevance.
 15. Thecomputer readable medium of claim 1, wherein managing the relevance ofthe plurality of RFP documents with respect to a plurality of PDdocuments further comprises: presenting using at least one of saidoutput devices, said communications bus, or said network interface tosaid originator of said PD via a user interface saidRFP-document-to-PD-segment relevance, wherein a positive relevance ofone or more elements of said RFP-document-to-PD-segment relevance isindicated by presenting via said user interface said positive relevanceusing a visual symbol having at least one different size, color, orshape than an element of said RFP-document-to-PD-segment relevancehaving an absence of relevance.
 16. The computer readable medium ofclaim 1, wherein receiving the PD document further comprises: receivingusing at least one of said input devices, said communications bus, orsaid network interface said PD document via a user interface that ispresented to said originator of said PD document, wherein said userinterface is used to receive from said originator a descriptive text ofone or more sentences or paragraphs to be matched.
 17. The computerreadable medium of claim 16, wherein aggregating theRFP-document-to-PD-segment relevance by the PD-document decomposition toproduce the RFP-to-PD relevance further comprises: disaggregating usingsaid one or more processors said aggregated RFP-to-PD relevance resultinto said aggregated result's constituent components; and transmittingusing at least one of said output devices, said communications bus, orsaid network interface said disaggregated RFP-to-PD relevance to saidoriginator of said PD document.
 18. The computer readable medium ofclaim 16, wherein aggregating the RFP-document-to-PD-segment relevanceby said hierarchical PD-document relationships to produce the RFP-to-PDrelevance further comprises: ranking using said one or more processorssaid RFP document from said plurality of RFP documents by at least oneof: said aggregated RFP-to-PD relevance, or saidRFP-document-to-PD-segment relevance.
 19. The computer readable mediumof claim 16, wherein managing the relevance of the plurality of RFPdocuments with respect to a plurality of PD documents further comprises:associating using said one or more processors an attribute with one ormore documents comprising said plurality of RFP documents, saidplurality of PD documents, or both said pluralities, wherein saidattribute denotes ownership of said one or more documents by a party;and communicating using said one or more processors and at least one ofsaid input devices, said output devices, said communications bus, orsaid network interface information relating to said relevance between afirst party associated with a document from said plurality of RFPdocuments and a second party associated with a document from saidplurality of PD documents.
 20. The computer readable medium of claim 16,wherein managing the relevance of the plurality of RFP documents withrespect to a plurality of PD documents further comprises: presentingusing at least one of said output devices, said communications bus, orsaid network interface to said originator of said PD via a userinterface said RFP-document-to-PD-segment relevance, wherein a positiverelevance of one or more elements of said RFP-document-to-PD-segmentrelevance is indicated by presenting via said user interface saidpositive relevance using a visual symbol having at least one differentsize, color, or shape than an element of said RFP-document-to-PD-segmentrelevance having an absence of relevance.